Holly Jarvis v. Duell et al.

Jarvis · United States District Court for the Northern District of New York · December 17, 2025 · No. 5:25-CV-843 (LEK/MJK)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York reviewed objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in Holly Jarvis’s § 1983 action. The court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend most claims, and dismissed the claims concerning New York’s Freedom of Information Law with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court gave Plaintiff 45 days to file a further amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint failed to state a Section 1983 claim because it did not allege facts showing that the off-duty defendants acted under color of state law or that they were state actors.
  2. The amended complaint failed to plausibly plead the asserted constitutional claims because it did not identify facts showing that defendants caused the alleged injury or what force they used, did not allege that Plaintiff was searched, and did not allege protected First Amendment activity, chilling of speech, or that defendants were government actors.
  3. The federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce New York Freedom of Information Law claims, and those claims were properly dismissed with prejudice.
  4. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend each claim except the FOIL claims, which were dismissed with prejudice because no facts could confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over them.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiff's objections required rejection of the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint.
  2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that the defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  3. Whether the amended complaint plausibly pleaded excessive force, illegal search, and First Amendment retaliation claims.
  4. Whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff's New York Freedom of Information Law claims.
  5. Whether the plaintiff should receive leave to amend her claims.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (18)

  • A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405-406 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)(followed)
  • Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, No. 24-1103, 2025 WL 3007285, at *3, *5 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2025)(followed)
  • Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Miller v. Brightstar Asia, Ltd., 43 F.4th 112, 120-121 (2d Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339-340 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(followed)
  • N.Y.C. Dist. Councils of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)(followed)
  • Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(followed)
  • Milano v. Astrue, No. 05-CV-6527, 2008 WL 4410131, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…