Angelino v. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
1:24-cv-07907
S.D.N.Y.May 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Eli Angelino, resides in California and filed suit pro se against the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) after being unable to obtain a copy of his birth certificate for a birth allegedly occurring in New York in 1982 to unknown parents.
- Angelino previously pursued relief in New York state courts, including two Article 78 proceedings and an appeal to the Appellate Division, all of which were unsuccessful.
- The complaint sought $10 million in damages and a court order mandating "delayed registry" of his birth certificate.
- Plaintiff asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and state law via diversity jurisdiction.
- The complaint was filed in forma pauperis. The court reviewed it under required standards for pro se and IFP pleadings, including subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (as inferred/reflected in ruling) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1983 claim based on state vital records | DOHMH's denial of a birth certificate violated federal law | Only violations of federal—not state—law are actionable under §1983 | § 1983 claim dismissed; alleged violations are of state/local law |
| Procedural due process violation | Denial was "arbitrary and capricious" and violated due process | Plaintiff received state hearings and remedies per state procedures | No due process violation; process adequate, claim dismissed |
| Fourteenth Amendment citizenship rights | Denial impaired his right as a U.S.-born citizen | DOHMH does not adjudicate citizenship; claim about vital records | No Fourteenth Amendment claim stated, dismissed |
| APA claim | Invoked APA to challenge DOHMH's decision | APA doesn’t permit federal review of municipal agency decisions | APA claim dismissed; DOHMH not subject to APA |
| State law claims & preclusion | Diversity jurisdiction and damages claim | Issue was decided in prior state (Article 78) litigation; collateral estoppel applies | Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of entitlement to delayed registration |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (defining state action under § 1983)
- Hellenic Am. Neighborhood Action Comm. v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877 (2d Cir. 1996) (Article 78 proceeding adequate for due process)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (lower federal courts lack power to review state court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (same as above for federal jurisdiction limits)