Powell v. New York City Comptroller

Background

Claude O. Powell, Jr. brought the action without a lawyer against the New York City Comptroller, the New York Police Department’s 28th Precinct, Police Officer Narain #26494, and Police Officer Ramos #15445. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction, and the court interpreted his allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights, along with potentially related state-law claims.

Powell alleged that on July 17, 2021, after being released from Central Booking, he went to an address on West 124th Street in Manhattan and found that the lock on the door had been changed. He called 911, and Officers Narain and Ramos arrived. Powell showed them a temporary order of protection. He claimed that the officers listened to Ebony Kendricks, blocked the door, and closed it with the slam lock, leaving him unable to enter his apartment. He sought $100 million in damages.

Claims against the 28th Precinct

The court dismissed the claims against the 28th Precinct because the New York Police Department and its precincts lack the legal capacity to be sued separately from the City of New York. The court explained that claims against the NYPD or its subdivisions generally must be brought against the City.

The court also declined to treat Powell’s claims against the precinct as claims against the City. A municipality is not liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly did something wrong. Powell would have needed to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation, and the court found that he had not done so.

Claims against Officers Narain and Ramos

The court treated Powell’s allegations that the officers failed to help him enter the apartment as a Section 1983 claim based on a constitutional right to government assistance. The court held that the Constitution generally does not give individuals an affirmative right to government aid, including a general right to police investigation or protection.

The court identified two exceptions: when the government takes a person into custody and holds that person against the person’s will, or when the government helps create or increase the danger. It found no facts suggesting that either exception applied. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Narain and Ramos because the alleged failure to help Powell enter the apartment did not show a violation of a constitutional right. The court also noted that the temporary protection order attached to the complaint did not address possession of the apartment.

Claim against the New York City Comptroller

Although Powell named the New York City Comptroller in the caption, he did not otherwise mention that defendant in the complaint. Section 1983 requires facts showing a defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Because Powell alleged no facts showing the Comptroller’s involvement, the court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the Comptroller for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims

The court said that a self-represented complaint is generally read broadly to include related state-law claims, even when the plaintiff has not expressly cited state law. After dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction, however, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims. The order therefore did not decide any such state-law claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court dismissed Powell’s claims under Section 1983 for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. It granted Powell leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The court instructed him to provide the relevant facts supporting each claim, including what each defendant did, when and where events occurred, his injuries, and the relief sought. Any amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The court specifically stated that the 28th Precinct is not a proper defendant and should not be named in the amended complaint. It also said Powell should not include the New York City Comptroller unless he could allege facts suggesting that defendant’s liability. If Powell failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would again decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Powell permission to appeal without paying fees.