Pereira v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Arao Abel Pereira appeared without a lawyer and was proceeding without paying filing fees. His 26-page complaint included approximately 1,620 pages of attachments. He named the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Department of Homeless Services, New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, the United States Justice Department, the New York City Police Department, the “New York City Attorney General,” the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, the New York City Housing Authority, the New York City Human Resources Administration, and the United States Postal Service Administration.

Pereira alleged that his daughter was sexually abused while participating in childcare and early-education programming at a shelter operated by the Department of Homeless Services. He asserted negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with those allegations. He also included allegations concerning medical care he received, public-assistance benefits, state-court proceedings, mail tracking, an auto-body service, housing-related matters, and other incidents.

Court’s analysis

Because Pereira was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented filings receive a generous reading but still must comply with the federal pleading rule requiring a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court held that Pereira could represent only himself. As a nonlawyer, he could not bring claims on behalf of his daughter or another person. The court therefore dismissed any claims Pereira was asserting for his daughter without prejudice to his daughter pursuing those claims on her own behalf.

The court also found that Pereira had attempted to combine unrelated claims against multiple defendants. It identified, among other examples, the allegations about his daughter’s abuse, his medical care, public-assistance benefits, and mail tracking. The court explained that unrelated claims against different defendants generally must be brought in separate actions. It granted Pereira leave to amend concerning one incident and, if he wished, to file additional separate complaints that comply with the rules governing related claims and parties.

The court further directed that any amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement, avoid unrelated or unnecessary allegations and voluminous exhibits, and provide facts showing federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that merely invoking federal jurisdiction is not enough. For state-law claims based on diversity jurisdiction, the complaint would need to allege that all parties are citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Disposition

The court granted Pereira 60 days to file an amended complaint asserting only claims on his own behalf. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims he wants considered must be repeated in it. The order required him to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. No summons would issue at that time.

The court warned that if Pereira did not timely amend and could not show good cause for failing to do so, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.