Case: Griffith v. New York State
5:20-cv-01312 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
Filed Date: Oct. 22, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This pro se case was ultimately dismissed on the magistrate’s recommendation finding that the confused amended complaint failed to state a cause of action, and was indeed frequently incomprehensible. For this reason it is likely of little import. Interpolating from the confused language, the case is arguably about tenants’ ability to vote when a census error with their address purportedly caused to be entered by their Landlord could potentially interfere with voting eligibility, but the ruling is based on the incomprehensible nature of the amended complaint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff and co-Plaintiff, roommates, filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against the State of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Under 52 U.S.C. § 10303 (Suspension of the Use of Tests or Devices in Determining Eligibility to Vote) and 13 U.S.C. § 223 (Refusal, by Owners, Proprietors, Etc., to Assist Census Employees), Plaintiffs claimed their right to vote could be improperly impeded by a census error in their address, caused by their Landlord, and that this was a test or device that interfered with their right to vote on account of being white, Caucasian Americans. That same day, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.
On October 27, 2020, U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe issued an order directing administrative closure of the case for failure to comply with the filing fee.
On November 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, before District Judge Sharpe. Plaintiffs sued the State of New York and Plaintiffs’ Landlord, seemingly bringing Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment claims of constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs also seemingly brought claims under 52 U.S.C. § 10303, 13 U.S.C. § 223, and 34 U.S.C. § 30505. Plaintiffs alleged that because of one Plaintiff’s sex offender status, incorrect census information caused by their Landlord would impinge upon their voting and housing rights.
The same day that Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, Plaintiffs also filed an amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. On November 12, 2020, Judge Sharpe re-opened the case.
On December 1, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Supplement to their October 22, 2020 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. That same day, Judge Sharpe denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on the grounds that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that it was not immediately apparent why immediate relief was necessary.
On December 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, claiming New York State should be responsible for not protecting voter rights for Plaintiffs (as tenants) with regard to errors involving the census of their address and invalid identities of people identified as residing at their address, among other claims against the State of New York. On December 18, 2020, Judge Gary L. Sharpe denied Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on the same grounds it denied Plaintiffs’ October 22, 2020 Motion for a Restraining Order.
On December 15, 2020, Plaintiffs had also filed a Motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging one Plaintiff’s 2002 conviction, upon a guilty plea, in Onondaga County for first degree rape.
On December 21, Plaintiffs filed a Supplement to their December 15, 2020 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
On December 28, 2020, Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric issued an Order and Report Recommendation, granting Plaintiffs’ November 9, 2020 amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and recommending Plaintiffs’ November 9, 2020 Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend and recommending that Plaintiffs’ December 15, 2020 Motion for Writ of Habeus Corpus be dismissed without prejudice (2020 WL 9432999).
On May 4, 2021, Judge Sharpe adopted Magistrate Judge Lovric’s December 28, 2020 Order and Report Recommendation in its entirety, ordering that Plaintiffs’ November 9, 2020 Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend and that Plaintiffs’ December 15, 2020 Motion for Writ of Habeus Corpus be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to replead (2021 WL 1758860).
On May 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Extraordinary Writ and Petition for Rehearing for Petition of Writ of Certiorari.
On July 14, 2021, Magistrate Judge Lovric issued an Order and Report Recommendation, recommending Plaintiffs’ May 26, 2021 Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend on the grounds that the Amended Complaint was frivolous and unintelligible. The Order and Report Recommendation also recommended that Plaintiffs’ May 26, 2021 Petitions for Extraordinary Writ and for Rehearing for Petition of Writ of Certiorari be stricken from the docket, or in the alternative, denied without prejudice since they appeared to seek relief from outside the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (2021 WL 3374620).
On August 3, 2021, Judge Sharpe adopted Magistrate Judge Lovric’s Order and Report Recommendation in its entirety, dismissing Plaintiffs’ May 26, 2021 Amended Complaint and striking Plaintiffs’ May 26, 2021 Petitions for Extraordinary Writ and for Rehearing for Petition of Writ of Certiorari from the docket (2021 WL 3367210). That same day, Judge Sharpe also entered judgment in favor of Respondents.
On September 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal (USCA Case Number 21-2133) as to the Court’s August 3, 2021 findings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 22, 2021, the Second Circuit ordered Plaintiffs’ Appeal dismissed effective October 13, 2021 for failure to pay filing fees.
On July 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. On March 1, 2023, Judge Gary L. Sharpe granted the motion. However, since then, there has been no new notice of appeal and the initial appellate docket recognizes the case as closed.
Summary Authors
Ana Pena (12/4/2023)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18572510/parties/griffith-v-new-york-state/
Sharpe, Gary L. (New York)
-, Howard Griffith,
Griffith, Howard (New York)
Sklaney, Rebecca (New York)
-, Jan Nastri,
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18572510/griffith-v-new-york-state/
Last updated April 13, 2026, 4:51 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 22, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two roommates in New York, one of whom is a registered sex offender.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Jan Nastri
State
New York
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
Northern District of New York 5:20-cv-01312
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 21-02133
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Affected Race(s):
Voting:
Case Summary of Griffith v. New York State, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/44481/ (last updated 12/4/2023).