Rodrigues v. Family Justice Ctrs., 18-CV-6999 (JPO)

NATALIE RODRIGUES, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS (MANHATTAN AND QUEENS), Defendants.

18-CV-6999 (JPO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 6, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Natalie Rodrigues brings this action pro se against Defendants the Family Justice Centers of Manhattan and Queens (the "Centers" or "Defendants"). Rodrigues filed this action on February 14, 2018, in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2.) Defendants were served on July 17, 2018 (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 3), and removed the case to this Court in a timely manner on August 3, 2018 (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 7).

Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss Rodrigues's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No. 9.) For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted.

I. Background

Rodrigues's complaint consists of a single page of allegations and two attachments from the internet. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4-9.) The gravamen of the complaint is that the Family Justice Centers of Manhattan and Queens failed to provide Rodrigues with services upon request, in violation of her rights.

New York City's Family Justice Centers, located in Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens, "are walk-in centers for victims of domestic violence, elder abuse, and sex trafficking." (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5.) Rodrigues alleges that "on three occasions [she] went to the Family Justice Center in Queens starting in 2015; and three times in Manhattan starting in July 2017-January 2018." (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4.) At the Centers, she requested assistance with "obtaining [a] police report," but staff "said they were unable to assist with that" despite "assisting other woman instead." (Id.) Rodrigues also alleges that she requested a safe place to stay, but staff "failed to assist with this as well." (Id.)

Rodrigues "seek[s] compensation" for the Centers' failure to provide assistance on six enumerated grounds: (1) as "[d]iscrimination"; (2) for the "[f]ailure to provide housing"; (3) for causing "[e]motional distress"; (4) for contributing to "[e]conomic strains/losses" caused by third-parties as a result of the Centers' inaction; (5) for violating "equal protection" and 18 U.S.C. § 3771; and (6) for violating her "right to free speech." (Id.) Rodrigues's complaint seeks "restitution of [$]1 million in discrimination and [$]100,000 in" the cost of "obtaining a safe place, expenses of not having a safe place[]." (Id.)

II. Legal Standard

In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual allegations "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and "draw[] all inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Allaire Corp. v. Okumus, 433 F.3d 248, 249-50 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

Moreover, courts must afford pro se plaintiffs "special solicitude" before granting motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir.1994). "A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Therefore, courts interpret a pro se plaintiff's pleadings "to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). "Even in a pro se case, however, 'although a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint, that tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions, and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.'" Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009)).

III. Discussion

The parties' briefing in this case raises three issues: (1) whether to remand the case to state court; (2) whether to grant the motion to dismiss; and (3) whether to grant Rodrigues leave to amend her complaint. The Court addresses each in turn.

A. Motion to Remand

Before turning to the merits, the Court examines whether this action should be kept in federal court or remanded back to state court. Rodrigues's response brief "requests that the case be settled or tried in the Supreme Court of New York." (Dkt. No. 13 at 1.) The Court construes this as a motion to remand.

The Centers removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because Rodrigues's complaint alleged claims under federal law. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 5-6.) Rodrigues agrees that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. (Dkt. No. 13 at 3.) Indeed, federal question jurisdiction exists over Rodrigues's constitutional and federal discrimination claims, and theCourt may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a). To the extent Rodrigues seeks to remand the case, then, it is not on jurisdictional grounds; rather, it seems to be on the basis of public policy considerations. (Dkt. No. 13 at 3 (describing Defendants as "a NY based origination and not a national organization" and "the subject in question" as thus "only the concern of NY").)

The Court need not resolve the merits of this argument, because any motion to remand on this basis is time-barred. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), "[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a)." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Rodrigues was thus required to raise her request for remand within thirty days of the Centers' filing of the notice of removal on August 3, 2018. (Dkt. No. 1.) However, she sought remand for the first time in her response brief, which was sworn and filed on September 10, 2018, thirty-eight days after the notice of removal was filed. (Dkt. No. 13 at 4.) Therefore, as the Centers note (Dkt. No. 14 at 2), Rodrigues's motion for remand in this case was untimely.

B. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move to dismiss Rodrigues's complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 9.) The Court reads the complaint as potentially seeking to allege seven discrete claims, challenging: (1) discrimination under Title VI; (2) violation of substantive due process rights; (3) infliction of emotional distress; (4) conspiracy to violate civil rights; (5) violation of equal protection rights; (6) violation of free speech rights; and (7) fraud. Due to the lack of sufficient factual allegations in the complaint, each of these claims is dismissed.

1. Discrimination

The first claim in Rodrigues's complaint alleges that she suffered "[d]iscrimination" through the Centers' "failure to provid[e Rodrigues] with advocacy" notwithstanding the assistance provided to "other wom[e]n instead." (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4.) As Defendants suggest (Dkt. No. 10 at 7), the Court interprets this assertion as an attempt to state a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.¹

Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. To state a claim for discrimination under Title VI, "a plaintiff must plausibly allege 'that the defendant discriminated against [her] on the basis of race, [color, or national origin,] that discrimination was intentional, and that the discrimination was a "substantial" or "motivating factor" for the defendant's actions.'" Weiss v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 17 Civ. 3557, 2019 WL 1244508, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019) (first alteration in original) (quoting Tolbert v. Queens Coll., 242 F.3d 58, 69 (2d Cir. 2001)).

Defendants contend that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to plausibly establishthese elements. (Dkt. No. 10 at 7-8.) They are correct. Rodrigues's complaint contains no factual allegations to suggest that, in denying her requests for services, the Centers were motivated by discrimination against Rodrigues on the basis of her race, color, or national origin. Where, as here, a complaint "consist[s] of nothing more than naked assertions, and set[s] forth no facts upon which a court could find a violation of the Civil Rights Acts," it thus "fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." Weinreb v. Xerox Bus. Servs., LLC Health & Welfare Plan, 323 F. Supp. 3d 501, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Martin v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Mental Hygiene, 588 F.2d 371, 372 (2d Cir. 1978)). For this reason, Rodrigues's discrimination claim is dismissed.

2. Substantive Due Process

Rodrigues's second claim seeks compensation for the "[f]ailure to provide housing/a safe location (as per the tax paying dollars funding the organization(s) that [she] ha[d] paid into offer)." (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4.) The Court construes this assertion as raising a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

To adequately plead a substantive due process violation, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the infringement of a right protected by substantive due process; and (2) that the conduct of the state actor was sufficiently "egregious" or "outrageous" to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Masciotta v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 136 F. Supp. 3d 527, 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Lombardi v. Whitman, 485 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2007)); ...