Ruiz v. New York City Police Department

Background

Angel L. Ruiz, who was representing himself and had permission to file without paying court fees in advance, sued the New York City Police Department, the 43rd Precinct, POM Rosa Anderson, Sgt. Joseph Bermudez, POM Moustafa, and Sgt. Warkenthien. Ruiz alleged that, on January 13, 2021, he was threatened and attacked at a CTown Supermarket in the Bronx after a cashier or manager used a homophobic slur and threatened to kill him. Ruiz reported the incident to 911 and apparently reported it two more times. He alleged that the police did not investigate or act on his complaints. He sought $10 million in damages.

Jurisdiction and claims

Ruiz invoked diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. The court found that Ruiz alleged he was a New York citizen and that the defendants were also residents of New York State, so complete diversity was lacking. The court therefore concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction.

The court also considered whether the complaint raised a federal question. It construed Ruiz’s allegations against the police department and officers as potentially asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. The court held that Ruiz did not allege facts showing that the defendants violated a federal right. In particular, the court stated that there is no constitutional right to government assistance or to an investigation by government officials.

The court further stated that the New York City Police Department is a city agency that generally cannot be sued under Section 1983. If Ruiz intended to sue New York City, he would have to allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights; the court found no such allegations in the complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without advance payment of fees and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted Ruiz 30 days to file an amended complaint providing facts showing that the court has jurisdiction. The order directed him to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-7386 (LTS). The court said that if Ruiz did not amend within the required time and could not show good cause, it would enter judgment dismissing the action and decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Ruiz permission to appeal without paying the required fees.