Hamza v. Yandik
| Decision Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-CV-0447 (LEK/DJS) |
| Parties | AMIR M. HAMZA, Plaintiff, v. EILEEN YANDIK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Plaintiff Amir Hamza brings this pro se action against Eileen Yandik, William Yandik, Stephen Yandik, and Green Acres Farm (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff originally filed a complaint in this action on April 15, 2019. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint"). On May 14, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 5. Also on May 14, 2019, by separate order, the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, United State Magistrate Judge, reviewed the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended that all claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, but with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 6 ("First Report-Recommendation"). Plaintiff filed no objections to the First Report-Recommendation, but rather filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 9 ("Amended Complaint"). On June 27, 2019, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the Amended Complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) and again recommended the dismissal of all claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, while granting leave to amend. Dkt. No. 11 ("Second Report-Recommendation"). On July 12, 2019, Plaintiff submitted objections to the Second Report-Recommendation. Dkt. No. 13 ("Objections").
For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Second Report-Recommendation in part and modifies it in part.
The Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Objections paint a complex story, the potentially relevant parts of which the Court will detail here.1, 2 Between June 2013 and October2016, Plaintiff worked at Green Acres Farm (the "Farm"), which is located in New York State.3 Compl. at 1-2. The Farm is owned and operated by Eileen Yandik. Id. William Yandik, Eileen Yandik's son, was Plaintiff's supervisor at the Farm. Id. at 2. Stephen Yandik4 oversaw payroll at the Farm during the relevant time period. Am. Compl. at 5. Defendants currently reside in Livingston, New York. Id. at 1.
In June 2013, around the time that Plaintiff commenced employment at the Farm, he and William Yandik initiated a romantic relationship. Compl. at 2. On July 15, 2014, Plaintiff and William Yandik signed a legal agreement by which they arranged to have a child via a surrogate. Id. at 3. This child was born on April 8, 2016. Id. On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff and William Yandik married. Id. The couple ultimately divorced, roughly two years after Plaintiff's employment at the Farm was terminated. Id. at 33.
Plaintiff's job responsibilities at the farm included planting trees, clearing fields, cleaning, operating a cash register, managing the Farm store, preparing bakery items, and an assortment of other tasks. See id. at 15, 20. For the duration of his employment on the Farm, Plaintiff was not compensated for his labor. See Am. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff does not provide an approximation of the number of hours he worked throughout his term of employment. But at various times, it appears that Plaintiff worked full days and weekends, while during other periods, such as after the birth of his child, Plaintiff worked sporadically and with limited hours. See Compl. at 12, 14.
Eileen Yandik verbally represented to Plaintiff, on a date not specified, that in exchangefor his labor, Plaintiff would be made "partial owner" of the Farm. See Am. Compl. at 2. William Yandik reiterated this promise, also at unspecified date, characterizing Plaintiff's unpaid labor as "sweat equity" that would be compensated with eventual "partial ownership" of the Farm. Compl. at 19, 21. Elsewhere in the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that William Yandik promised "partial ownership" of the Farm in exchange for "employment, marriage to [William], and a planned surrogacy of a child." Id. at 2. Despite these promises, Plaintiff was never made a partial owner of the Farm. See Am. Compl. at 2.
On two occasions, Plaintiff sustained injuries while working on the Farm. On an unspecified date, while dismantling an two-story addition to a farmhouse, Plaintiff sustained a "minor injury" that required a surgical stapling procedure. See Compl. at 20. On another unspecified date, Plaintiff received a concussion when he fell from a delivery truck while unloading apples. See id. Defendants did not carry workers' compensation insurance for employees of the Farm at the time of either event. See id.
Defendant William Yandik and Eilieen Yandik "engaged in coercing the Plaintiff to hide his sexual orientation." Am. Compl. at 2, 6. They persisted in compelling Plaintiff to conceal his sexual orientation from customers from the start of his employment until October 2016, when William Yandik publicly revealed his own sexual orientation in the course of a campaign for political office. Compl. at 14. Plaintiff also alleges that Stephen Yandik made unspecified discriminatory comments about Plaintiff to unspecified parties, regarding Plaintiff's religion, race, and sexual orientation. See Am. Compl. at 6. Plaintiff is a former Muslim who converted to Judaism while employed at the Farm. See Compl. at 27-29.
Contemporaneously with his period of employment, Plaintiff alleges that Eileen andWilliam Yandik used their positions in local government to induce other government officials to follow and photograph Plaintiff's car in public places. Plaintiff alleges that Eileen Yandik "used her position as the Town of Livingston Court Clerk . . . to take excessive and continuous action against the Plaintiff," Am. Compl. at 3, and that William Yandik "used his position as the Town of Livingston Deputy Supervisor" to do the same, id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that Eileen Yandik "convinced local law enforcement to have the Plaintiff followed by law enforcement based on unfounded accusation [sic]." Id. at 4.
In his Objections, Plaintiff elaborates on these allegations. He alleges that Town of Livingston Justice Harold Weaver, "at the behest of . . . Eileen Yandik," issued an order instructing "all law enforcement and public employees" in the Town of Livingston—along with the Columbia County Sheriff's Department, the Greenport Police Department, the Philmont Village Police Department, the New York State Police, "Town of Greenport Parks and Recreation," and other "government agencies in Columbia County"—to "follow and monitor" Plaintiff's car. See Objs. at 4-5. Plaintiff alleges that, on several occasions, the Greenport Police "moniter[ed]" and "photograph[ed]" Plaintiff and his son in the Greenport Town Park. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also alleges that "Town of Greenport Parks and Recreation" "monitored" his car on multiple occasions and that, on one occasion, "a Columbia County Sheriff slowed his vehicle and photographed Plaintiff from his phone." See id. at 5, 6.
Finally, Plaintiff avers that Eileen and William Yandik have tarnished his reputation by making unspecified statements about Plaintiff to various public officials. Eileen Yandik "slandered the Plaintiff" in front of Town of Livingston Judge Angela Guzzi and her family, Am. Compl. at 4, and William Yandik "slandered the reputation of the Plaintiff in front of judges, lawenforcement, and public officials," id. at 6.
Based on the factual allegations described, Judge Stewart construed the Amended Complaint to assert (1) claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); (2) § 1983 claims premised on unspecified constitutional violations; and (3) claims for discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and sexual orientation. See id. at 5-6. Additionally, while the Second Report-Recommendation did not explicitly construe other causes of action, Judge Stewart noted in passing that Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated a variety of other laws, "including but not limited to" New York laws pertaining to workers' compensation coverage and firearms. See id. at 5.
The Amended Complaint contends that the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims on the basis of diversity, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Am. Compl. at 1. But the Magistrate Judge concluded that because Plaintiff and Defendants are all residents of New York, the Court lacks jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. See R. & R. at 4-5.
The Magistrate Judge noted that the Court may have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but determined that even if the Court had federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff would fail to state any federal claim. Second R & R at 5-7.
In his Objections, Plaintiff offers several new factual allegations, legal arguments, and legal claims. In regard to diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff newly avers that he was a resident of Delaware at the time of some of the events giving rise to this suit. Plaintiff identifies specific Constitutional rights that Eileen Yandik allegedly violated, for purposes of his § 1983 claims (or,in other words, asserts new § 1983 claims). Id. at 4. Plaintiff elaborates on factual allegations relevant to his § 1983 claims against Eileen Yandik, specifying the means by which she induced local and state officials to surveil Plaintiff and the manner in which these officials did so. Objs. at 4-6. Plaintiff offers some of those same facts to support RICO claims alleged in the Amended Complaint. Id. at 4. Additionally, Plaintiff offers new arguments to support existing RICO claims. Id. at 3-4. He also alleges entirely new RICO claims. Id. at 2, 3.
When a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time" 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thus, even if a plaintiff meets the financial...
To continue reading
Request your trial