Jones v. Cuomo

• Decision Date: 03 June 2021
• Docket Number: 20 Civ. 4898 (KPF)
• Citation: 542 F.Supp.3d 207
• Parties: Jeffrey D. JONES, Plaintiff, v. Andrew M. CUOMO, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of New York; and Howard Zucker, M.D., in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Health of New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

542 F.Supp.3d 207

Jeffrey D. JONES, Plaintiff,

v.Andrew M. CUOMO, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of New York; and Howard Zucker, M.D., in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Health of New York, Defendants.

20 Civ. 4898 (KPF)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Filed June 2, 2021

Signed June 3, 2021

Jeffrey Dean Jones, The Jones Law Firm, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Matthew Joseph Lawson, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:

Plaintiff Jeffrey Jones, an attorney proceeding pro se , filed this action against Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York State Department of Health ("DOH") Commissioner Howard Zucker, M.D., in their official capacities (collectively, "Defendants"). In it, Plaintiff raised various constitutional challenges to Governor Cuomo's Executive Order No. 205: Quarantine Restrictions on Travelers Arriving in New York (hereinafter, the "Executive Order"), which at the time Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint imposed a self-quarantine requirement on certain persons entering New York State. In particular, Plaintiff argued that the Executive Order violated several of his rights under the U.S. Constitution, including: (i) the right to interstate travel; (ii) the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV ; (iii) the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; and (iv) the Contracts Clause of Article I. In addition, Plaintiff argued that the Executive Order was unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff sought money damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is granted.

BACKGROUND¹

A. Factual Background

1. The Parties and Executive Order No. 205

Over the course of 2020, New York State enacted a series of evolving emergency actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (See FAC ¶ 23). One such action was Executive Order No. 205, issued by Governor Cuomo on June 24, 2020. (See id. at ¶¶ 29-30). The Order directed Health Commissioner Zucker to issue a travel advisory stating that:

All travelers entering New York from a state with a positive test rate higher than 10 per 100,000 residents, or higher than a 10% test positivity rate, over a seven-day rolling average, will be required to quarantine for a period of 14 days consistent with Department of Health regulations for quarantine.

(See Executive Order). Any violation of the quarantine requirement was enforceable pursuant to Article 21 of New York's Public Health Law, and non-compliance could subject the violator to a civil penalty of up to $10,000. (Id. ).

Pursuant to the Executive Order, Health Commissioner Zucker issued "Interim Guidance for Quarantine Restrictions on Travelers Arriving in New York State Following Out of State Travel." (See DOH Interim Guidance). The DOH Interim Guidance provides that states falling within the Executive Order's positivity criteria would be identified based on the "tables posted publicly by all 50 states," with "[a]nalysis of the metrics ... conducted weekly to determine if travelers from other states qualify." (Id. at 2). The "restricted" states with "significant community spread" were, in turn, "conspicuously posted" on the DOH website, with updates posted weekly. (Id. ). At the time the Executive Order was enacted, approximately ten states met or exceeded its positive test rate threshold. (FAC ¶ 31).

Plaintiff is an attorney who resides in Oklahoma. (FAC ¶ 2). At the time Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, Oklahoma's positive test rate remained below the Executive Order's threshold. (Id. at ¶ 4). However, Plaintiff alleged that he had recently traveled to Arkansas, and that travelers from that state were subject to the Executive Order's quarantine requirement at that time. (Id. at ¶ 58).

Plaintiff has been admitted to the practice of law in New York State since April 2010. (FAC ¶ 3). In this capacity, Plaintiff has represented clients in employment disputes in New York State. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5). At the time Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, he was representing multiple New York-based clients in cases where court hearings, mediations, and depositions had been scheduled to take place in New York. (Id. at ¶ 60). Plaintiff alleged that because he had recently traveled to Arkansas, were he to travel to New York, he would be required to self-quarantine for fourteen days under the terms of the Executive Order. (Id. at ¶ 58). He further alleged that were he subjected to this requirement each time he visited New York for business, he would be unable to "properly service" his New York-based clients. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-60).

2. Subsequent Developments in New York State Quarantine Requirements

The Executive Order has been superseded by subsequent executive orders and travel guidelines since the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. See, e.g. , Executive Order No. 205.1 (Sept. 28, 2020); Executive Order No. 205.2 (Oct. 31, 2020); Executive Order No. 205.3 (Dec. 30, 2020). Most recently for these purposes, on April 10, 2021, the DOH issued its "Updated Interim Guidance for Travelers Arriving in New York State (NYS)" (the "Updated Interim Guidance"). This guidance applies to all travelers, including New Yorkers and those visiting from out-of-state or another country. Pursuant to this guidance, New York State's current COVID-19 travel advisory provides:

Asymptomatic travelers entering New York from another country, U.S. state, or territory are no longer required to test or quarantine as of April 10, 2021. Quarantine, consistent with the CDC recommendations, is still recommended for all travelers who are not fully vaccinated or have not recovered from laboratory confirmed COVID-19 during the previous 3 months. Symptomatic travelers must immediately self-isolate and contact the local health department or their healthcare providers to determine if they should seek COVID-19 testing.

New York State COVID-19 Travel Advisory, https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-travel-advisory (last visited May 30, 2021) (emphasis in original).

B. Procedural Background

The day after the Executive Order was issued, on June 25, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of his Complaint. (Dkt. #1). Five days later, on June 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in this action. (Dkt. #2).

On September 14, 2020, Defendants filed a letter seeking a pre-motion conference regarding their anticipated motion to dismiss (Dkt. #13), and on September 17, 2020, Plaintiff opposed their application (Dkt. #14). The following day, the Court declined to hold a pre-motion conference and set a briefing schedule for Defendants’ anticipated motion. (Dkt. #15). Pursuant to that schedule, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss and supporting papers on October 16, 2020 (Dkt. #16-19); Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on November 13, 2020 (Dkt. #20); and briefing concluded with the submission of Defendants’ reply brief and supporting papers on November 30, 2020 (Dkt. #21-22).

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual allegations "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A complaint that contains only "naked assertions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" does not suffice. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint. See Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Plaintiff is a licensed attorney who is proceeding pro se. Although the pleadings of pro se parties are typically "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), the law is clear that "pro se attorneys ... ‘cannot claim [this] special consideration,’ " Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co. , 258 F.3d 62, 82 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Harbulak v. County of Suffolk , 654 F.2d 194, 198 (2d Cir. 1981) ); see also Tracy v. Freshwater , 623 F.3d 90, 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (collecting cases supporting the proposition that "a lawyer representing himself ordinarily receives no [special] solicitude"); Abraham v. Leigh , 471 F. Supp. 3d 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), reconsideration denied , No. 17 Civ. 5429 (KPF), 2020 WL 5095655 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020).

B. Analysis

1. The Case Is Not Moot

As observed above, the Executive Order has since been superseded by less restrictive executive orders and guidance issued in response to the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and the concomitant decline in positive test results. At the time the instant motion was briefed, Defendants did not move to dismiss on mootness grounds, though they did indicate that the Court should consider the Amended Complaint in light of amendments to the Executive Order in effect at the time of briefing. (See Def. Reply Mem. 1-2 (discussing Executive Order 205.2)). However, when a case becomes moot, a district court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction, see Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. , 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994), and courts may consider whether they have subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any stage of the litigation, see Fed. Dep. Ins. Corp. v. Four Star Holding Co. , 178 F.3d 97, 100 n.2 (2d Cir. 1999). For this reason, the Court begins by addressing the...