Jean-Baptiste v. United States Department of Justice et al

Filing 43

ORDER Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Order to Show Cause, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants besides the City of New York. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate each as a Defendant in this action. In addition, while the Court explained that Plaintiff had failed to show standing to assert a Second Amendment claim against the City of New York because his Amended Complaint failed to allege that he had suffered an injury in fact, Dkt. 41 at 9-11, Plaintiffs response appears to indicate that after the Amended Complaint was filed, he had additional interactions with the New York Police Department related to his handgun license application, Dkt. 42 at 5-7. Thus, while the Cou rt dismisses the claims brought in the Amended Complaint against the City of New York, Plaintiff is therefore granted leave to file a second amended complaint against the City of New York by June 19, 2023. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amend ed complaint by June 19, 2023 and does not show good cause for the failure to do so, the Court will close the case. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. Letitia James (New York State Attorney General), United States Department of Just ice, Damian Williams (U.S. Attorney, Southern Dist. of New York), Christopher Wray (Director of the Federal of Investigation), Federal Bureau of Investigation and Merrick B. Garland (Attorney General of the United States) terminated., (Amended Pleadings due by 6/19/2023.) (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 5/18/2023) (jca)

Case 1:23-cv-01897-JPC Document 43 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

23 Civ. 1897 (JPC)
ORDER

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:
On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff Harold Jean-Baptiste filed the Complaint in this case, Dkt. 1,
which he amended three days later, Dkt. 9. Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court
concluded that it did not appear to raise any viable claims, and therefore issued an Order to Show
Cause setting forth its reasons for believing that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed and
requiring Plaintiff to show cause why those reasons are invalid. Dkt. 41. On April 28, 2023, he
responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. 42. His response did not, however, present any
convincing argument why the reasons articulated in the Order to Show Cause do not require
dismissal of the Amended Complaint. First, while the Court explained that his claims against
Defendants United States Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney Damian Williams appear
to be barred by the sovereign immunity of the United States, Dkt. 41 at 7, Plaintiff’s response
instead addresses the very different doctrine of qualified immunity, Dkt. 42 at 15-19. Second,
while the Court explained that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Mayor Eric Adams were
redundant of his claims against Defendant City of New York, Dkt. 41 at 8-9, Plaintiff’s response
does not deny their redundancy and instead merely asserts that “[r]edundancy has no merit before

Case 1:23-cv-01897-JPC Document 43 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 2

the U.S. District Court to deny a ‘Pro Se’ plaintiff from a fair judicial review,” Dkt. 42 at 11.
Third, the Court explained that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant New York Attorney General
Letitia James were defective because no facts against her are alleged in the Amended Complaint,
and Plaintiff’s response does not address Attorney General James at all. Therefore, for the reasons
stated in the Order to Show Cause, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants
besides the City of New York. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate each as a
Defendant in this action.
In addition, while the Court explained that Plaintiff had failed to show standing to assert a
Second Amendment claim against the City of New York because his Amended Complaint failed
to allege that he had suffered an injury in fact, Dkt. 41 at 9-11, Plaintiff’s response appears to
indicate that after the Amended Complaint was filed, he had additional interactions with the New
York Police Department related to his handgun license application, Dkt. 42 at 5-7. Thus, while
the Court dismisses the claims brought in the Amended Complaint against the City of New York,
Plaintiff is therefore granted leave to file a second amended complaint against the City of New
York by June 19, 2023. He is cautioned, however, that he should amend the Amended Complaint
only if he is able to allege that the City of New York has caused him injury in fact by denying or
otherwise refusing to process his application for a handgun license and that the injury gave rise to
a viable federal claim. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint by June 19, 2023 and
does not show good cause for the failure to do so, the Court will close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2023
New York, New York

__________________________________
JOHN P. CRONAN
United States District Judge

2