Natalia v. Group Shelter Bowery

Background

Kodresko Natalia proceeded without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. She checked the form indicating that her case involved a federal question. Her complaint described alleged persecution, robbery, rape, physical injuries, threats, harm to family members, and an alleged effort to take her apartment. The court said it was unclear exactly whom she intended to sue and identified several people and entities named in the complaint, including Group Shelter “Bowery,” Fadeeva Valey, Romanov, Hector Flores, Fadeeva Galy, and Fadeev Sergei.

Why the Court Found the Complaint Deficient

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without advance payment of fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss a case if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute.

The court found that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although the complaint appeared to describe possible crimes, it did not provide enough facts about the incidents to show a viable legal claim or explain how each named defendant was responsible. The court also said the complaint did not clearly identify where or when the alleged violations occurred.

The court explained that merely checking the federal-question box did not establish federal jurisdiction. To the extent Natalia sought to bring constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she needed to allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state authority. The court found that labeling some defendants “Special Police,” without explaining what that meant or providing facts showing state action, was insufficient. The court also explained that a private person cannot use a federal civil lawsuit to force a prosecutor to arrest or prosecute someone.

The court further considered whether the complaint could assert state-law claims based on diversity jurisdiction. That form of jurisdiction generally requires citizens of different states and a claimed amount exceeding $75,000. The court stated that Natalia alleged that both she and Group Shelter “Bowery” were residents of New York, and it was unclear whether the other defendants’ listed addresses were residential addresses. The court also found it unclear whether the claims exceeded $75,000.

Leave to Amend and Other Rulings

Because it was unclear whether Natalia could allege additional facts supporting a valid claim, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. It must identify the relevant people and titles, describe what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, state the requested relief, and establish either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.

In a separate motion filed by Natalia, the court stated that she appeared to ask the court to pass her complaint to a district attorney. To the extent she sought that relief, the court denied the motion because decisions to prosecute belong to prosecutors, not private plaintiffs or the court.

The court ordered that no summons issue at that time. It stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim and a decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order. The court did not decide whether Natalia’s underlying allegations were true or whether she ultimately had a valid claim.