Amelio v. Houri

Background

On December 11 and 14, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for permission to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Their motion initially did not include a comparison between the proposed complaint and the Third Amended Complaint. After a court order, the plaintiffs filed that comparison on January 27, 2024.

The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers. The order did not decide whether the amendment would be permitted. Instead, it required the defendants to submit letters stating their positions by February 14, 2024. The Legal Aid Society defendants also had to say whether, if the amendment were permitted, they would rely on their existing motion to dismiss or file a new motion or an answer.

Claims the Court Identified as Futile

The court independently reviewed the proposed complaint, giving the plaintiffs' allegations the more generous reading generally given to filings by people without lawyers. It identified these proposed claims as legally futile, meaning that the allegations, even if accepted as pleaded, did not provide a legally sufficient basis for the claims:

- Count III — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: The court said the complaint did not allege that any defendant accessed a protected computer without permission or exceeded authorized access. It also did not allege that anything obtained through such access was worth more than $5,000. - Count IV — criminal statutes: The court said the criminal statutes invoked in this count did not give private individuals a right to sue. It noted that 18 U.S.C. § 1589 does provide such a right, but said that statute concerns trafficking in forced labor and did not apply to this case. - Counts XII, XIII, XIV, and the second count labeled XVI: The court said a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires action under state law. It found that, as alleged, only the police officers acted under state law. It also found insufficient allegations that the police and other defendants jointly acted or conspired, because the complaint alleged that police acted on false information but did not allege that officers knew the information was false or had an agreement with the other defendants. These counts therefore were futile against defendants other than Corrado, Cory, and Polanco. The court noted that the second count labeled XVI should instead be labeled XVII. - Count XII — First Amendment retaliation: The court separately found this claim futile because the complaint did not allege that the police retaliated against the plaintiffs for any conduct, including exercising First Amendment rights.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter by February 14, 2024, explaining why the identified claims were not futile and should be allowed if any amendment were permitted. It also ordered the defendants to file letters stating their positions on the proposed amendment. The order did not grant or deny leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and did not state that the case or any claim was dismissed.

Judge

The order was signed by Robert W. Lehrburger, United States Magistrate Judge.