Powell v. New York City Comptroller

Background

Claude O. Powell, Jr., representing himself, sued the New York City Comptroller. The court understood his allegations as claims under Section 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government actors for civil-rights violations, and related state-law claims. Powell alleged that events occurred on July 19, 2021, at his apartment in New York, New York. Under “Facts,” he listed only “False Arrest,” “Failure to Act,” and “Failure to Intervene.” He also alleged pain and suffering, an illegal eviction, and mental anguish, and sought $400 million in damages.

Reason for Dismissal

The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. It contained no factual allegations explaining what happened. Powell also did not explain how the Comptroller was directly or personally involved in any alleged civil-rights violation, which the court identified as necessary for damages under Section 1983.

Leave to Amend

The court granted Powell leave to file an amended complaint. It instructed him to provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts, including the names and titles of relevant people, what each defendant did or failed to do, approximate dates and times, locations, his injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-cv-10095 (MKV). The court stated that if Powell did not amend within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the action would be dismissed.

State-Law Claims and Duplicative Litigation Warning

The court declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims. The court also noted that the action appeared, from the limited information provided, possibly to rely on the same allegations as three other actions Powell had filed in that court. It warned that Powell could not simply repeat allegations from other complaints and that filing multiple and baseless lawsuits could result in an order restricting future filings.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and granted leave to amend. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Powell permission to appeal without prepaying fees.