Taylor v. Peragon Security Company

Background

Kenny Taylor, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action invoking federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. He sued “Peragon Security Company,” which the court understood to refer to Paragon Systems Inc. (“Paragon”), and two individuals whom he alleged were Paragon employees: Petter Sr. Rudolph R. and D. Carriere. Taylor alleged that he was a candidate for President of the United States and that, on December 15, 2023, he went to the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building at 26 Federal Plaza in New York to inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation about alleged interference with his presidential campaign.

Taylor alleged that the individual defendants escorted him out of the building after he told them he was a presidential candidate. He further alleged that they did not respect his status, interfered with his agenda, and prevented him from filing a complaint or report with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He sought $15,000,000 in damages, the firing of the individual defendants, an investigation of Paragon, and an end to interference with his agenda.

The court had previously granted Taylor permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Under the screening statute applicable to such complaints, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims Seeking Criminal Prosecution

The court stated that Taylor appeared to seek the criminal prosecution of the defendants or others. It dismissed any claims seeking that relief for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that prosecutors, not private plaintiffs or courts, decide whether to bring criminal charges. Taylor therefore could not use this civil action to require prosecutors to initiate a criminal case.

Federal Civil-Rights Claims

The court understood Taylor to be asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged violation of his First Amendment right to petition the government. Section 1983 permits a person to seek relief for a violation of federal rights by someone acting under state authority.

The court explained that Taylor needed to allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law. Private parties ordinarily are not state actors. A private security officer may qualify as a state actor if the officer was given police powers by a state or municipality.

The court found that Taylor had not alleged facts showing that either individual defendant acted as a state actor, including by exercising deputized state or municipal police powers. The court also found that, even assuming the individual defendants were state actors, Taylor had not alleged facts showing that Paragon caused a constitutional violation through a company policy, custom, or practice. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim.

Because Taylor was representing himself, the court granted him leave to replead the federal claims. An amended complaint would need to allege facts sufficient to state a Section 1983 claim against at least one defendant.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

The court understood Taylor possibly to be asserting state-law claims, including assault or battery. For diversity jurisdiction, Taylor needed to allege that he and all defendants were citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Although Taylor alleged that he was a New York citizen, he did not allege the citizenship of any defendant. He also did not allege facts sufficient to show that the state-law claims met the $75,000 jurisdictional amount.

The court therefore dismissed any state-law claims asserted under diversity jurisdiction for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Taylor leave to replead those claims with facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction.

The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because it had dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. The court noted that this conclusion would apply if Taylor filed an amended complaint asserting federal and state claims and the federal claims were later dismissed. The court further explained that it could not decline to hear state-law claims if original diversity jurisdiction were properly established.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in the order but granted Taylor 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court not to enter a judgment dismissing the action at that time because Taylor had been given leave to replead. If Taylor failed to file an amended complaint within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Taylor permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.