Clifton v. The State of New York

Background

Brandon De’Aundre Clifton filed the action without a lawyer against the State of New York, the New York State Department of Health, the “New York State Police Department,” and the Federal Communications Commission. He alleged violations of “constitutional and statutory rights” based on events he said occurred between January 2022 and November 2023. His allegations included police refusal to investigate, detention and attempted medication at Harlem Hospital, and a similar incident at Columbia Presbyterian. He listed numerous alleged injuries and requested financial relief, correction of information, reporting of allegedly taken cognitive data, an explanation for his absence from daily activities, and steps to prevent future misconduct.

The court reviewed the complaint under the standards for complaints filed without prepaying filing fees. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents a matter outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under the federal pleading rules.

Claims Against New York State and Its Agencies

The court treated Clifton’s constitutional claims against New York State, the New York State Department of Health, and the “New York State Police” as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides a cause of action for violating federal rights while acting under state authority. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and their agencies from federal suits for money damages, injunctions, and retrospective declarations. It found that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for § 1983 claims and that New York had not waived it.

The court therefore dismissed Clifton’s § 1983 claims against New York State and its agencies under Eleventh Amendment immunity and, as a result, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Potential Claims Against New York City Entities

The court understood the complaint as potentially seeking to sue New York City, the New York City Police Department, hospitals, and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. It held that the New York City Police Department is not a suable entity. In contrast, the court stated that the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene can be sued, but a § 1983 claim against a city or city agency requires facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

The court found that Clifton had not alleged facts showing such a policy, custom, or practice. It granted him leave to provide those facts in an amended complaint concerning New York City and/or the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Claims Against the Federal Communications Commission

The court held that claims against the Federal Communications Commission are generally barred by federal sovereign immunity unless immunity has been waived. It construed any damages claim against the FCC as a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States, rather than against the agency itself. The court explained that the Act requires a claimant to first submit an administrative damages claim to the appropriate federal entity and receive a final written determination, or wait six months without one, before filing suit in federal court.

The court found that Clifton had not alleged that he filed the required administrative claim, received a final written determination, or satisfied the timing requirements. The opinion therefore directed dismissal of the claims against the FCC and allowed Clifton to amend to assert any proper Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Clifton was proceeding without a lawyer and the court concluded that a valid claim might possibly be stated, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amendment must identify the relevant defendants and their addresses, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, state when and where the events occurred, describe the injuries, and identify the requested relief. The amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint, so any allegations Clifton wants to preserve must be repeated.

The court ordered that no summons issue at that time. It stated that if Clifton failed to file the amended complaint within the permitted period and could not show good cause, 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.