Powell v. City of New York

Background

Jamar Powell, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint invoking federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. He sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and the United States of America. The complaint also referenced Carrie B. Fields as a possible defendant.

Powell alleged that the City and the police department devised a plan to cause someone to transmit HIV to him, referred to the conduct as a death penalty, trafficked him, threatened to have him killed, and tried to arrange his arrest. He stated that the events occurred in New York City on November 27, 28, and 29, 2023. He described injuries including an HIV diagnosis, scars, and other sexually transmitted infections, and sought $20 million in damages.

The court had previously allowed Powell to proceed without paying filing fees. It explained that it had to dismiss a fee-free complaint that was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or raised claims over which the court lacked jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and Claims Against the United States

The court noted that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Powell alleged that he and the City of New York and the NYPD were citizens of New York. The court construed Powell’s claims against the governmental defendants as constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a claim when a person acting under state authority violates a federal constitutional or statutory right.

The court dismissed Powell’s money-damage claims against the United States because sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from such suits unless it has agreed to be sued. The court also dismissed any claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act because Powell did not allege facts showing that a federal employee committed a tort against him or that he completed the required administrative process. The court did not identify a basis for a constitutional damages claim against the United States.

Claims Against the NYPD and City

The court ruled that the NYPD, as a City agency, is not a suable entity. Because Powell was representing himself, however, the court treated his allegations against the NYPD as claims against the City of New York.

A municipality can be liable under Section 1983 only when its own policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Powell alleged no facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his rights. It therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the City for failure to state a claim.

Rule 8 and State-Law Claims

The court separately held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court found that Powell’s assertions about a plan to infect him with HIV and engage in human trafficking lacked enough supporting facts to make the claims plausible.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—that is, authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Powell might be asserting.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the complaint under the sovereign-immunity and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds. It granted Powell 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the individuals or suable entities involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant timing and location information, describe the injuries, and state the relief sought. It must repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint because it will replace, rather than supplement, that complaint.

If Powell did not file an amended complaint within the allowed period and did not show cause for failing to do so, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action and declining supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.