Wright v. New York City Police Department

Background

Delilah C. Wright, appearing without a lawyer, filed claims for herself and her minor children against numerous defendants, including the New York City Police Department, public agencies, police departments, businesses, and other entities. The complaint alleged events including arrests in Texas and Georgia, alleged harassment in New York and New Jersey, an alleged forced hospitalization and separation from her children, child-welfare and family-court proceedings, alleged mistreatment by school and service providers, and other incidents. Wright sought money damages. The opinion states that she invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction.

The court had previously granted Wright permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under the screening statute for such complaints, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally but must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement of the basis for relief.

Claims for the Minor Children

Wright attempted to assert claims on behalf of N.R. and C.W. The court held that, because Wright is not an attorney, she could not represent her minor children in federal court without a lawyer. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims Wright asserted on behalf of her children. The court also noted that future filings referring to a minor child must use only the child’s initials.

Claims from a Prior Related Proceeding

The court stated that Wright had previously filed a related action concerning her alleged forced hospitalization and the removal of her children from her custody. To the extent the present complaint repeated claims previously asserted, or claims arising from the events involved, in that earlier proceeding, the court dismissed those claims without prejudice to Wright pursuing them in that earlier proceeding. The opinion also refers to another related action that had been dismissed as duplicative.

Improper Joinder

The court found that the complaint improperly joined unrelated claims against multiple defendants. The allegations involved different incidents, places, and defendants, including arrests in Texas and Georgia, events in New York and New Jersey, and the hospitalization and family-court allegations connected to the prior related proceeding. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 allow related claims and parties to be joined in specified circumstances, but they do not permit unrelated claims against multiple defendants to be combined in one action. The court granted Wright leave to file an amended complaint concerning one incident and, if she wished, additional separate complaints for unrelated claims.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Venue

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over federal-law claims or over state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Wright did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction because she alleged that she and many defendants were citizens of New York. If she relied on federal-question jurisdiction, she had to identify facts showing a federal cause of action rather than merely invoking federal jurisdiction. If she relied on diversity jurisdiction, she had to allege that she and every defendant were citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

The court also directed Wright to consider whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue. Venue may depend on where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile, it granted Wright 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to concern claims asserted on Wright’s own behalf, exclude claims currently pending in the prior related proceeding, comply with the rules governing joinder, and allege facts supporting subject-matter jurisdiction and venue. It had to identify relevant people and defendants, describe what each defendant allegedly did, provide approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims Wright wanted to retain had to be repeated.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Wright to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, caption it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-0623 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.