Watson v. Sharpton

Background

Robert William Jr. Watson filed this case without a lawyer and sought money damages. He alleged that Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr., Katrina Jefferson, Shannon Murray, and Connery O’Brien violated his rights in connection with matters involving the September 11, 2001 attacks, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, the World Trade Center Health Program, housing, medical treatment, and other events. The complaint cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, other federal provisions, and state-law claims.

The court had previously allowed Watson to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under the screening statute for such cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims Under the Federal Civil-Rights Statute

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action taken under color of state law—that is, by someone using power supplied by state law. The court found that Sharpton, Jefferson, Murray, and O’Brien appeared to be private citizens or employees of private organizations. Watson did not allege facts showing that any of them acted under color of state law. The court therefore dismissed his constitutional claims under § 1983 for failure to state a claim.

Claims Related to September 11

The court understood Watson to be asserting claims based on injuries he may have suffered because of the September 11 attacks. Under the Air Transportation and Safety and System Stabilization Act, filing a claim with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund generally waives the claimant’s right to bring a civil damages action arising from the attacks, subject to exceptions identified in the statute. Because the complaint appeared to show that Watson may have filed a Victim Compensation Fund claim, the court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim. The court granted leave to replead them if Watson could allege facts showing that he had not filed such a claim and therefore had not waived his right to bring them.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims. The court noted that federal courts generally decline that authority when the federal claims are dismissed early and only state-law claims remain. The court also stated that the complaint appeared not to establish diversity jurisdiction because Watson alleged that he and the defendants all reside in New York, and the complaint did not establish the required amount in controversy.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Watson was representing himself and might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid § 1983 claim or a claim arising from September 11-related injuries, the court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court stated that if he did not timely amend, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Watson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Watson 30 days’ leave to replead.