Opinion
23-CV-0059 (LTS)
05-09-2023
VIVIAN ANN HILL, Plaintiff, v. RIVERSIDE CHURCH.ORG; REVEREND ADRIENE THORNE, Defendants.
ORDER TO AMEND
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that on November 3, 2022, Defendants Riverside Church.org and the Reverend Adriene Thorne prevented her from voting. She asserts that her claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. By order dated January 10, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 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 dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. 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.
Rule 8 requires a complaint to 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
The following facts are drawn from the complaint. On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff “proceeded to the former[ ] Citibank 111 Street and Broadway in Manhattan . . . to vote.” (ECF 2, at 4.) She noticed “voting sticker signs on the east side of the sidewalk that directed one to the exact location in order to cast a ballot to vote at said site.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends, however, that “this location was intentionally closed due to their most recent knowledge that I sought to vote there.” (Id.) Moreover, “[t]he Riverside staff that manned this voting location were aware of my stance regarding GAY RIGHTS,” which Plaintiff “consider[s] [to be] . . . overkill.” (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that “Riverside Church is known and . . . professes that voting rights is a privilege; however, I was denied this right on November 3, 2022 by Riverside Church staff that manned this voting location.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks $1,000,000 in damages.
Election Day in 2022 was November 8. Either the complaint provides the wrong date, or Plaintiff attempted to cast her vote early.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that, on November 3, 2022, she was unable to vote at her polling station. She suggests that individuals at the polling station, who worked at Riverside Church in Manhattan, prevented her from voting because of her political views. Accordingly, the Court construes the complaint as asserting a claim, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that her fundamental right to vote was violated by staff at a polling station. To state a claim under Section 1983, 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).
It is well-established that “voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979). Where a plaintiff alleges that an individual violated this fundamental right to vote, she first must show that the individual acted under color of state law because the Constitution regulates only government actors, not private parties. Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 206 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). A private entity's activity can be attributed to the state if the state has delegated a public function to the entity. Id. at 207. For example, a poll watcher may be deemed a state actor “because . . . the poll-watcher's function is to guard the integrity of the vote.” Tiryak v. Jordan, 472 F.Supp. 822, 824 (E.D. Pa. 1979). In Tiryak, the district court held that “[p]rotecting the purity of the electoral process is a state responsibility and the poll-watcher's statutory role in providing that protection involves him in a public activity[.]” Id. Having concluded that “[n]o activity is more indelibly a public function than the holding of a political election,” the court in Tiryak determined that if a poll watcher's “conduct is made possible by state election law, and if one sequela of their conduct is to further the purity of an exclusive state concern, [that is], elections, then their actions are for [Section] 1983 purposes properly attributable to the state.” Id. For these reasons, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania permitted the plaintiff in that case to proceed with his Section 1983 action: “Their conduct was made possible only because defendants were clothed with the authority of state law and a [Section] 1983 action is appropriate redress for the misuse of that power.” Id. at 824-25.
Here, the complaint differs from Tiryak in two respects. First, Plaintiff sues Riverside Church's pastor, the Reverend Thorne, whom Plaintiff does not allege acted in the capacity of a poll worker on November 3, 2022. Plaintiff does not even allege that the pastor was present at the polling station. Rather, the complaint suggests that employees of Riverside Church have worked at the polling station where Plaintiff attempted to vote; she does not allege that those employees were at the polling station on November 3, 2022. Second, she does not state facts suggesting that any individuals with whom she interacted on November 3, 2022 prevented her from voting. The facts alleged suggest that Plaintiff could not vote, not because an individual prevented her from doing so, but because the polling station was closed.
Even construing the complaint as asserting claims against employees of Riverside Church, Plaintiff does not state that such employees prevented her from voting on November 3, 2022. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the claims brought against Riverside.org and Reverend Thorne for failure to state a claim and grants Plaintiff 60 days' leave to file an amended complaint to state facts in support of her claim. Should she pursue this litigation, she must detail the events that occurred at her polling station on November 3, 2022. Plaintiff also must name as defendants the individuals who she alleges prevented her from voting.
LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid claim regarding her inability to vote on November 3, 2022, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days' leave to amend her complaint to detail her claims.
A. John or Jane Doe Defendants
Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint to provide more facts about her claims. First, Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption and in the statement of claim those individuals who were allegedly involved in the deprivation of his federal rights. If Plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, she may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint. The naming of John Doe defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing this action.
The caption is located on the front page of the complaint. Each individual defendant must be named in the caption. Plaintiff may attach additional pages if there is not enough space to list all of the defendants in the caption. If Plaintiff needs to attach an additional page to list all defendants, she should write “see attached list” on the first page of the Amended Complaint. Any defendants named in the caption must also be discussed in Plaintiff's statement of claim.
For example, a defendant may be identified as: “Poll Worker John Doe #1.”
Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe” defendants and amending his complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” defendants before the statute of limitations period expires. Should Plaintiff seek to add a new claim or party after the statute of limitations period has expired, he must meet the requirements of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
B. Statement of Claim
In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include:
a) the names and titles of all relevant people;
b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred;
c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and
d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.
Essentially, Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated her federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Because Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint.
C. New York Legal Assistance Group
Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group's (“NYLAG”) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 23-CV-0059 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Riverside Church.org and Reverend Adriene Thorne for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.