Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 20, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-07647
StatusUnknown

This text of Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General (Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAHN K. FOY, Plaintiff, 21-CV-7647 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND THE STATE OF NEW YORK; JUSTICE GEORGE J. SILVER, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The Court also construes the complaint as attempting to assert claims for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 By order dated September 15, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also

1 Plaintiff originally filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. See Foy v. State of New York, No. 1:21-CV-4926 (KAM) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2021). By order dated September 8, 2021, the Eastern District transferred the action to this Court. (ECF 4.) dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing

the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings his claims using the Eastern District’s general complaint form for a civil case. He invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and states that he is bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff names as defendants the State of New York and Justice George J. Silver, the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts. The facts section of the complaint form states in its entirety: Acting under color of state law and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: My supervisors and court officer union representatives misused the office of a state judge in order to carry out an unauthorized wrongful termination. I have evidence that will prove these individuals devised a plan to fire me in response to a complaint I made concerning a discriminatory act made against me. I allege these individuals impersonated Justice George J. Silver, the Deputy Administrative Judge for New York City Courts. The court system has been covering this up since November 2020. (ECF 1, at 5-6.) Plaintiff seeks “a declaratory judgment that the court officer termination be null and void,” as well as money damages, including “monetary relief in the form of compensation for malicious prosecution, illegal termination, defamation per se, personal injury @ $20,000,000.00.” (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. Rule 8 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint include a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. The complaint is short and plain, but it does not include sufficient facts to suggest a plausible claim. B. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff purports to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Eleventh Amendment Immunity “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have

waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . .” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
455 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1982)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Garcetti v. Ceballos
547 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Laurance A. Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers
192 F.3d 322 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
685 F.3d 135 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Chukwuka v. City of New York
513 F. App'x 34 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Patane v. Clark
508 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Weintraub v. Board of Educ. of City of New York
593 F.3d 196 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foy-v-the-state-of-new-york-new-york-state-attorney-general-nysd-2021.