Decatus v. the City

Background

Vanessa Decatus proceeded without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. She initially began the matter as a miscellaneous case on behalf of the “Vanessa Decatus Trust/Estate.” The court directed that it proceed as a civil action with Decatus as the plaintiff and the City and County of New York as defendants.

Decatus alleged that her 2018 white Mercedes-Benz C300 was booted and towed from the northwest corner of 43rd Street and 10th Avenue on July 12, 2023, at 2:42 a.m. Her filing referred to a claim of property and equity interests, Uniform Commercial Code filings, and a security agreement. She described the alleged wrongs as an unauthorized taking, unreasonable seizure with malicious intent, trespass, continuing seizure, and fraud. She sought $10,800,000 in damages, property, or gold.

Federal Claims

The court treated Decatus’s claims against the City of New York as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by state or local actors. For a claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation.

The court found that Decatus asserted that her rights were violated but did not identify a city or county policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged violation. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, while granting Decatus leave to file an amended complaint alleging facts that could support municipal liability under Section 1983.

State-Law Claims

The court treated Decatus’s claims for fraud, trespass, an unauthorized taking, and deprivation of property as state-law claims. Because she had not stated a federal claim, the court declined at that time to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning the court declined to hear the related state-law claims in the same federal case. The court expressly offered no opinion about whether those state-law claims could proceed in state court.

UCC and “Sovereign Citizen” Theories

The court stated that Decatus’s reliance on the Uniform Commercial Code and related documents appeared to reflect “sovereign citizen” theories. It explained that courts have universally rejected arguments of this type, including arguments that a person’s filings or claimed liens prevent government officials from seizing property. Those theories did not provide a legal or factual basis for the claims described in the complaint.

Leave to Replead and Disposition

Because Decatus represented herself, the court granted her an opportunity to amend. The amended complaint was due to the Pro Se Intake Unit by June 12, 2024, and had to be labeled “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 24-CV-2224. The court instructed that the amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims Decatus wanted considered had to be repeated in it.

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim but granted leave to file an amended complaint. It directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. If Decatus did not comply by the deadline and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.