Shamilov v. City of New York

Background

Aleksandr Shamilov, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action against the City of New York and various current or former Department of Finance employees in their individual and official capacities. He alleged violations of federal, New York State, and New York City law connected to his former employment as a probationary City Tax Auditor. His amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on race; the New York State Human Rights Law; the New York City Human Rights Law; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and 42 U.S.C. chapter 21.

The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Shamilov also filed two letter motions: one seeking to supplement the amended complaint with information about later actions by the Department of Finance, and another seeking to restore his Section 1981 claims.

Rulings on the Defendants and Certain Claims

The court held that the Department of Finance could not be sued directly because a New York City agency is not a suable entity. It also held that claims against Department of Finance employees in their official capacities were effectively claims against the City and were duplicative because the City was already a defendant. The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Finance and the official-capacity claims without prejudice to pursuing them as claims against the City.

The court dismissed all claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act with prejudice because that statute does not apply to state and local governments. It also denied Shamilov’s request to restore his Section 1981 claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The court explained that Section 1983 provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for Section 1981 rights when the defendants are state actors, including municipalities and municipal employees.

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting possible Section 1983 claims against the City and the individual defendants. It explained that a Section 1983 claim against the City must identify a City policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged constitutional-rights violation. A claim against an individual defendant must allege that person’s personal involvement. The court stated that the amended complaint did not appear to identify the required City policy, custom, or practice, and that it would evaluate any claims against individual defendants in a later pleading.

Rule 8 and Further Amendment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that Shamilov’s 247-page amended complaint, together with the additional materials he asked the court to consider, was neither short nor plain. The court cited repeated and apparently irrelevant allegations, numerous exhibits, and filings that would require the court and defendants to select relevant material from a large volume of documents.

The court therefore dismissed the remainder of the claims for violating Rule 8(a). It granted Shamilov 60 days to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must be no more than 30 pages of double-spaced text, contain no attachments or exhibits, name only individual defendants personally involved in the alleged violations, and present concise factual allegations in numbered chronological paragraphs. It must completely replace the original and first amended complaints rather than supplement them.

The court warned that if Shamilov did not file the second amended complaint by April 22, 2024, and could not show good cause for the failure, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice. The court denied the letter motion seeking additional information as moot in light of the Rule 8 dismissal and denied the request to restore the Section 1981 claims. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee assistance for an appeal.