Manley v. HRA/DSS

Background

Eric Manley, who was representing himself, sued the New York City Human Resources Administration, the New York City Department of Social Services, and Kadeja Allen. The complaint appeared to concern a family-court matter involving Manley and Allen. Manley asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and he sought compensatory damages.

The court noted that the complaint was difficult to understand. Manley alleged, among other things, that HRA and DSS acted as collection agencies and interfered with his rights in connection with HIPAA and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He also alleged that the defendants conspired against him and referred to events connected with proceedings in Richmond County Family Court.

Section 1983 Claims

The court dismissed the claims against HRA and DSS because New York City agencies generally are not separate entities that can be sued. Because Manley appeared to intend to sue New York City, the court treated those claims as claims against the City.

A municipality can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only when its own policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court ruled that Manley’s allegations about the agencies acting as collection agencies did not adequately allege such a policy, custom, or practice. It therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against New York City for failure to state a claim.

The court separately dismissed the § 1983 claims against Allen. A § 1983 claim generally requires action under color of state law, meaning action taken through government authority or in concert with the government. The court found that Allen was alleged to be a private person and that Manley did not allege that she worked for a state or other government body.

Conspiracy Claims

The court dismissed Manley’s conspiracy claims under §§ 1983 and 1985. For a conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must provide facts showing an agreement, actions taken to advance the agreement, and resulting harm. A § 1985 claim also requires an alleged purpose to deny equal protection or equal privileges, generally motivated by racial or another similar type of discriminatory bias.

The court ruled that Manley had not alleged an agreement or factual details about how any conspiracy began or operated. The court found that his allegations were only general conclusions that the defendants had conspired to deny his unspecified constitutional rights.

HIPAA Claims

The court dismissed the HIPAA claims because HIPAA does not allow an individual to bring a private lawsuit to enforce its restrictions on disclosure of medical records. The court instructed Manley not to assert a HIPAA claim in any amended complaint.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Manley may have intended to assert.

Because Manley had paid the filing fee, the court gave him notice and an opportunity to respond before dismissing the case. The court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint. If he did not do so, the clerk would be directed to enter judgment. If he filed an amended complaint, the court would decide whether summonses should issue.

Warning and Disposition

The court referred to two earlier related proceedings involving similar allegations and warned that Manley might be barred from filing further litigation about his family-court matter involving Allen, HRA, DSS, and other people named in those proceedings unless he first received permission under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

Judge Ho dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to amend, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.