Guy v. MTA New York City Transit
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: As set forth in the Court's October 12, 2017 Memorandum and Order, Defendant's partial motion 54 to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED. See attached Memorandum and Order for details. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to serve a copy of the attached Memorandum and Order on the pro se Plaintiff. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 10/12/2017. (Zdanys, Joanna)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-againstMTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT,
LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Hayden Guy (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Guy”) brings this action against
Defendant, MTA New York City Transit (hereinafter “Defendant” or “MTA”) alleging claims of
discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment on the basis of race and religion under
Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, except that Defendant does not
seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim based on the denial of a promotion.
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts alleged in this matter. By
Memorandum and Order dated September 23, 2016, this Court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Sept. 23, 2016 Mem. and
Order 17, ECF No. 32.) The Court dismissed with prejudice (1) any claims based on Plaintiff’s
alleged demotion, as those claims were untimely, and (2) Plaintiff’s Title VII race discrimination
claim, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id.) The Court denied
Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim based on the denial of a promotion. (Id.)
The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to amend his (1) race discrimination claims under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and his religious discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1983
based on the denial of a promotion, and (2) his hostile work environment claim. (Id.)
Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on October 21, 2016. (Second Am.
Compl., ECF No. 35.) On November 10, 2017, Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a premotion conference in connection with its intended motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. (Def.’s Pre-Mot. Letter, ECF No. 38.) On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
proposed Third Amended Complaint. (Proposed Am. Compl., ECF No. 48.) The Court held a
pre-motion conference on January 4, 2017, at which time the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for
leave to file the Third Amended Complaint. (Jan. 4, 2017 Minute Entry and Order.)
Although Plaintiff alleges a number of new facts concerning his interactions with MTA
personnel during the relevant time period, none of these facts cure the deficiencies of the First
Amended Complaint. Notably absent are any allegations that would give rise to an inference of
discrimination, such as the treatment of black and/or Jewish employees of the MTA. Indeed,
Plaintiff appears to have abandoned a number of his previous allegations that would be even
remotely relevant to pleading discriminatory animus on the basis of race and/or religion. As
such, Plaintiff’s renewed pleading fails to withstand Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint. See Jeon v. Pavilion at Queens for Rehabilitation & Nursing, No.
15-cv-5114, 2017 WL 1151098, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2017) (dismissing complaint because,
among other things, the pro se plaintiff failed to plead facts giving plausible support to the
conclusion that demotion occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
In its September 23, 2016 Memorandum and Order, the Court found that Plaintiff had
sufficiently pleaded a claim for retaliation. (Sept. 23, 2016 Mem. and Order 15.) It appears that,
in an effort to cure the deficiencies relating to his discrimination claims, Plaintiff now omits the
facts pleaded in the First Amended Complaint that the Court previously found sufficient to state
a claim of retaliation. Defendant does not move to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claim in the
instant partial motion to dismiss. It is true that an amended complaint ordinarily replaces the
original complaint. Arce v. Walker, 139 F.3d 329, 332 n.4 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Int’l Controls
Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1977)) (“It is well established that an amended
complaint ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”). Given Plaintiff’s
pro se status, however, the Court will consider both the Third Amended Complaint and First
Amended Complaint together. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim based on the denial of a promotion
will proceed. See Burton v. City of New York Police Dep’t, No. 14-cv-7158, 2014 WL 7427534,
at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2014) (considering both original and amended complaints in light
of plaintiff’s pro se status).
Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint is granted. Having
failed to cure the deficiencies of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s race and religious
discrimination claims and hostile work environment claim are dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s retaliation claim based on his denied promotion will proceed.
LASHANN DEARCY HALL
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October 12, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?