Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2021Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Kivia C. Greene sued neighbors and several local officials (East Fishkill town officials, police chief, Wappingers Central School District superintendent, and Dutchess County Executive) alleging years-long harassment motivated by race (2011–2018).
- Alleged harms included dogs on property, children shooting BB guns, a noose displayed outside her window, playing a song, and inadequate police responses; she sought assistance from local government entities and the school district.
- Greene pleaded claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sought tax refunds and $10 million in punitive damages; later referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the case had been stayed for the neighbors’ bankruptcy and later reassigned; plaintiff was given leave and an opportunity to amend but did not do so.
- The Court found Greene’s pleadings lacked facts showing which Title(s) of the Civil Rights Act were implicated, failed to allege constitutional violations or defendants’ personal involvement under § 1983, and that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non‑binding.
- Because amendment would be futile and plaintiff had already been given further opportunity, the Court dismissed the claims against the moving defendants with prejudice and directed their termination from the case.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Complaint states a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | Greene alleges a "pattern of racism" and seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act | Defendants argue no Title is identified or facts pled to support any Title; individual liability is generally unavailable | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege any cognizable claim under any Title; individual defendants cannot be sued under many Titles |
| Whether § 1983 claim is sufficiently pled (constitutional violation and state action/personal involvement) | Greene invokes § 1983 alleging inadequate government responses to neighbor harassment | Defendants argue Greene alleges no specific constitutional right, no state‑actor conduct, and no personal involvement by the named officials | Dismissed: § 1983 claim deficient for failure to allege a constitutional deprivation or defendants' personal involvement |
| Whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights creates a federal cause of action | Greene sought to substitute or add the Declaration as the legal basis for relief | Defendants note the Declaration is non‑binding and does not create private federal claims | Dismissed: Declaration is non‑binding and cannot supply a federal cause of action |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Greene previously amended once and argued via opposition papers; she was given opportunity to amend again | Defendants contend dismissal is proper; further amendment would be futile | Denied as futile: Court had allowed amendment opportunity; because further amendment would not cure deficiencies, dismissal with prejudice granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim and legal conclusions are not entitled to the presumption of truth)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (government generally has no constitutional duty to protect individuals from private violence)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (no constitutional right to compel prosecution or have complaints investigated)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (international declarations do not themselves create federal causes of action)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se complaints must be construed liberally)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2010) (limitations on individual liability under certain Titles of the Civil Rights Act)
- Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (legal conclusions and threadbare recitals insufficient in pro se complaints)
- Alfaro Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883 (2d Cir. 1987) (§ 1983 requires personal involvement by defendants)