Natalia v. Group Shelter Bowery

Background

Kodresko Anatolievna Natalia proceeded without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. After reviewing her original complaint, the court directed her to file an amended complaint because the original pleading did not provide enough facts to show a plausible legal claim, explain how the defendants were responsible, identify when and where the alleged violations occurred, or establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that she could not use a civil case to initiate criminal arrests or prosecutions.

Natalia filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023. The court said it was stylistically and substantively similar to the original complaint and that it was unclear exactly whom she intended to sue. The apparent defendants included “Shelter ‘Bowery’ with killer,” Galy Fadeeva, Valy Fadeeva, Nagdasev Anatoli, Romanov, Lanhenki Ni, “full ‘Bowery,’” and “Police New York,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Police Department. The complaint referred to various alleged crimes, violence, threats, damage, and injuries, but also contained passages that were difficult to understand and several handwritten pages in a language other than English.

Reasons for dismissal

Failure to satisfy Rule 8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to give enough factual information to state a claim that is plausible and to give each defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis. The court concluded that, even reading Natalia’s self-represented complaint with the special consideration given to such filings, it could not determine what she was alleging. The court also found that nothing in the amended complaint suggested a viable federal claim.

Requests for criminal prosecution

To the extent Natalia sought criminal prosecution of individuals, the court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court explained that the decision to arrest or prosecute belongs to prosecutors, not to a private person or the federal court acting on that person’s request.

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The court considered whether Natalia might be asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for the state or a local government.

The court concluded that the shelter and the listed individual defendants appeared to be private actors. Because Natalia alleged no facts showing that they acted under state authority, she could not state a § 1983 claim against them.

The court also dismissed claims against the New York City Police Department because, under New York City law, a city agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. In light of Natalia’s self-represented status and possible intention to sue the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as also asserting claims against the City. Those claims failed because Natalia alleged no facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of her constitutional rights.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Natalia may have been asserting.

Further amendment and appeal status

The court denied further leave to amend because Natalia had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and the amended complaint did not suggest that another amendment could cure its defects. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, denied further leave to amend, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.