Medas-King v. Ocean Breeze Athletic Complex et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Medas-King's Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and to close this case. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that a ny appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Medas-King and note the mailing on the docket. ORDER ATTACHED. Ordered by Judge Eric R. Komitee on 7/30/2022. (Hsu, Aaron)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
ANDY MEDAS-KING,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
21-CV-6424(EK)(MMH)

OCEAN BREEZE ATHLETIC COMPLEX, THE
ARMORY TRACK & FIELD CENTER, OFFICE
OF THE MAYOR CITY HALL, et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Andy Medas-King, proceeding pro se, filed
this action on November 12, 2021 against Ocean Breeze Athletic
Complex, the Armory Track & Field Center, and Park Slope Armory
YMCA, as well as the Office of the Mayor of New York City.
Medas-King challenges a New York City policy, instituted during
the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring individuals to show proof of
vaccination status before entering athletic venues.

The

Complaint purports to assert claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Medas-King’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
is granted solely for the purpose of this order, but his
complaint is dismissed without prejudice, as set forth below.

I.

Background

Medas-King’s Complaint indicates that he seeks to
bring Bivens and Section 1983 claims against each Defendant.

He

alleges that New York City’s policy of requiring individuals to
show proof of Covid-19 vaccination status before entering indoor
athletic venues violates his First Amendment rights to religious
expression, speech, and assembly.

Compl. 4, ECF No. 1.

The

complaint states, among other things, that the mandatory
vaccination policy is preventing him from supervising his
daughter at such events.

Id. at 5.

He seeks “the ability to

enter the building” during such events.
II.

Id. at 6.

Legal Standards

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may dismiss
an in forma pauperis action if the action: “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.”

Additionally, if the Court

“determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action.”

Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(3); see also Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas
Telecomms., S.À.R.L., 790 F.3d 411, 416-17 (2d Cir. 2015)
(district court may dismiss an action for lack of subject-matter

2

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) when it “lacks the
statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it”). 1
III.

Discussion

As an initial matter, Medas-King’s Bivens claims fail
because none of the Defendants are federal officials, nor does
Medas-King allege that any Defendant has acted under color of
federal law.

See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397; see also Shapiro v.

Cmty. First Servs., Inc., No. 11-CV-4061, 2014 WL 1276479, at *7
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2014) (“A Bivens claim may only be brought
against federal officials or individuals who have acted under
color of federal law.”).
Similarly, Medas-King’s Section 1983 claims against
the athletic facilities must be dismissed because they are not
state actors, and nowhere does Medas-King allege that any of
those facilities has engaged in “private behavior” that bears
“such a close nexus between the State and the challenged action”
that it “may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.”
Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S.
288, 295 (2001).
Finally, Medas-King’s Section 1983 claim against the
Mayor of New York must be dismissed as moot, to the extent he is

1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.

3

seeking injunctive relief. 2

Medas-King does not specifically

identify the policy that he challenges, but his complaint
appears to refer to Emergency Executive Order 225.

See Polo v.

City of New York, No. 12-CV-3742, 2013 WL 5241671, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2013) (taking judicial notice of a municipal
law).
Order 225 required indoor entertainment, recreation,
dining, and fitness facilities to deny entry to patrons and
employees unless the individual displayed proof of Covid-19
vaccination.

See Office of the Mayor, City of New York,

Emergency Executive Order 225, Key to NYC: Requiring COVID-19
Vaccination for Indoor Entertainment, Recreation, Dining and
Fitness Settings (Aug. 16, 2021), https://www1.nyc.gov/officeof-the-mayor/news/225-001/emergency-executive-order-225.
However, on February 27, 2022, Mayor Eric Adams lifted
that order effective March 7, 2022.

See Office of the Mayor,

City of New York, Mayor Adams’ Statement on Mask Mandates in
Schools, Vaccine Mandates Across NYC (Feb. 27, 2022),
https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/096-22/mayoradams-on-mask-mandates-schools-vaccine-mandates-across-N.Y.C.

Medas-King does not allege that he is entitled to monetary damages
from New York City as a result of Emergency Executive Order 225, at least not
in a manner that satisfies the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Compl. 4; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a complaint
must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief”).
2

4

Federal courts “lack jurisdiction to review an appeal
that is moot.”

Reale v. Lamont, No. 20-3707-CV, 2022 WL 175489,

at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2022).

“A case is moot when the issues

presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.”
51, 52 (2d Cir. 2015).

Tann v. Bennett, 807 F.3d

Because Order 225 has been rescinded,

any claim premised on it is now moot.

See, e.g., Chrysafis v.

Marks, 15 F.4th 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2021) (“Constitutional
challenges to statutes are routinely found moot when a statute
is amended.”); Lamar Advert. of Penn, LLC v. Town of Orchard
Park, New York, 356 F.3d 365, 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[W]e are
hesitant to hold that a significant amendment or repeal of a
challenged provision that obviates the plaintiff’s claims does
not moot a litigation, absent evidence that the defendant
intends to reinstate the challenged statute after the litigation
is dismissed, or that the municipality itself does not believe
that the amendment renders the case moot.”).
IV.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Medas-King’s Complaint is dismissed
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk of Court is

directed to enter judgment and to close this case.

The Court

certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore
in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal.
5

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

The

Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this
order to Medas-King and note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee__________
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated:

July 30, 2022
Brooklyn, New York

6