Velez v. Kennedy

Background

Diane Velez filed the action without a lawyer and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. She named Arianna Kennedy, New York City Family Court Judge Lauren T. Broderick, Tyesha Williams, and Sidney Rousse as defendants. Her allegations referred to a possible child-welfare investigation, a family court proceeding involving her children, and events at a hospital or doctor’s office. She alleged, among other things, that the Administration for Children’s Services made unsupported allegations, that people threatened her with jail and separated her from her children, and that hospital personnel forced medication on her. She did not state the relief she was seeking.

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirements that apply to a person allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must identify how each defendant is responsible.

Reasons for the ruling

The court found that Velez did not provide enough facts to state a plausible claim. Except for Judge Broderick, she did not explain who the defendants were or what roles they played. She also did not provide enough information about the various incidents to show a viable legal claim or explain how the named defendants were responsible.

The court dismissed Velez’s claims against Judge Broderick. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from suits for damages based on actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Velez alleged no facts showing that Judge Broderick acted outside those responsibilities or outside her jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Judge Broderick because they sought monetary relief from an immune defendant and were considered legally frivolous for purposes of the filing-fee statute.

The court also addressed potential claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for a state or local government. Velez alleged no facts suggesting that Kennedy, Williams, or Rousse worked for a state or other government body. She also did not adequately allege that Williams or Rousse were personally involved in the events, and her single reference to Kennedy did not provide enough facts showing direct involvement. The court stated that an amended complaint would need to identify each defendant’s government connection, if applicable, and personal role.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Velez 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify the defendants, relevant events, approximate dates and locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that any defendant named in the caption must also be discussed in the statement of claim. It allowed use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for an unidentified defendant, but noted that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period.

The court did not decide at that stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. No summons would issue at that time. If Velez failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the 60-day period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.