Manning v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02352
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Manning v. City of New York, Judge Schofield ordered briefing on jurisdiction and standing without deciding the case.
James Manning, the City of New York, and the other defendants; the order also addresses whether Bethelite Community Baptist Church could be added or substituted as a plaintiff.
What happened
In Manning v. City of New York, James Manning sued the City of New York and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that a tax lien against Bethelite Community Baptist Church, where he is pastor, violated his speech and religious freedom.
The court had previously denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the case while allowing them to renew it. The court asked the parties to address whether it has authority to hear the case, including whether Manning has standing even though the lien was assessed against the church rather than him.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the defendants to file a legal memorandum first and allowed Manning to respond with a memorandum or a letter. The order did not decide whether the court has jurisdiction, whether Manning has standing, or whether his claims succeed.
The detailed version
- Manning v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-02352
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
James Manning, representing himself and not a lawyer, filed the complaint on March 17, 2023. The complaint asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges that a “Discriminatory, Predatory, Unjust Tax Lien” was filed against Bethelite Community Baptist Church for unpaid water and sewer taxes. Manning alleges that the lien denied him freedom of speech and religious liberty. The opinion states that Manning is the church’s pastor.
On December 6, 2023, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal. The court directed Manning to respond to the defendants’ argument that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute, because Manning lacks standing, meaning a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury. Manning submitted a letter brief on January 3, 2024.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court ordered full legal briefing on its subject-matter jurisdiction. It directed the defendants to address the tax lien’s procedural history, any later foreclosure, related state-court litigation, and a cited state appellate decision involving Bethelite. The defendants also must discuss the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a rule that can limit federal district-court review of injuries caused by state-court judgments; whether Manning’s alleged injuries give him standing even though he is not the person or entity against which the lien was assessed; whether any standing problem could be addressed by adding or substituting Bethelite as a plaintiff; and any other issue affecting jurisdiction.
The court allowed Manning to file a memorandum in response. Because he is representing himself and the jurisdiction question is largely legal, the court also allowed him to file a letter stating that he disputes the defendants’ arguments and will rely on the court’s legal analysis. In either filing, Manning must state his legal relationship to Bethelite, such as whether he is an employee, subcontractor, shareholder, or something else.
Order and Effect
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the defendants to file their memorandum by March 5, 2024, and allowed Manning to file his memorandum or letter by March 26, 2024. The parties were told not to file additional materials on jurisdiction unless the court requested them. This order required briefing; it did not decide whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, whether Manning has standing, or whether the defendants’ motion to dismiss should ultimately be granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.