Jallow v. the City of New York
21-1267-cv
| 2d Cir. | Nov 4, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Yaya Jallow sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various federal and state provisions after altercations at a Chipotle and a supermarket, alleging false arrests and race-based discrimination.
- The district court dismissed Jallow’s amended complaint with leave to amend; Jallow filed a second amended complaint naming only the City (not individual officers).
- The district court sua sponte dismissed the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, concluding Jallow did not plausibly allege a municipal policy or custom causing a constitutional violation.
- The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and denied further leave to amend.
- Jallow appealed; the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jallow pleaded municipal (Monell) liability under § 1983 | City personnel and departments engaged in racist, discriminatory arrests and prosecutions; municipal responsibility should follow | Complaint contains only conclusory allegations and fails to identify any official policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged violations | Affirmed dismissal: Jallow failed to plausibly allege a policy or custom causing a constitutional deprivation (no Monell claim) |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleged false arrest / lack of probable cause by NYPD officers | Arrests were racially motivated and unlawful | Jallow did not name officers or plead facts showing arrests lacked probable cause or were racially motivated by municipal policy | Dismissed: bare allegations insufficient to establish false arrest/prove municipal causation |
| Whether dismissal sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) was appropriate | Dismissal was improper because pleadings should be liberally construed for pro se plaintiff | Court may dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to state a plausible claim even when pro se | Affirmed: court properly dismissed for failure to state a claim under controlling plausibility standards |
| Whether denial of further leave to amend was improper | Plaintiff sought another opportunity to cure defects | Plaintiff already had an opportunity to amend and failed to cure Monell defect by naming officers or alleging policy facts | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in denying further amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaleski v. Burns, 606 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2010) (review of sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is de novo)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions; respondeat superior not a basis for liability)
- Williams v. Corr. Officer Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2016) (pro se complaints are construed with special solicitude)
- Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (pro se complaint still must state a plausible claim)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom causing the deprivation)
- Frost v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 980 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2020) (Monell requires denial of constitutional right caused by municipal policy or custom)
- Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2020) (defining official policy and persistent widespread practice standard for Monell)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (general or conclusory municipal allegations fail to state a Monell claim)
- Vippolis v. Village of Haverstraw, 768 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1985) (municipality must take some action beyond employing the officer to be liable)