Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless Services
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05346
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Sowell v. Department of Homeless Services, Judge Swain dismissed claims against DHS, allowed amendment, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Randy Sowell’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services were dismissed, but he was allowed 60 days to amend the complaint and pursue claims against the City of New York and specifically identified individuals. The order also denied him permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless Services, Randy Sowell, representing himself, alleged that shelter staff and Department of Homeless Services police violated his rights at several shelters. He described problems involving parole transportation, shelter beds, retaliation, assaults, and pepper spray.
The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Homeless Services because New York City agencies generally cannot be sued separately from the City. The court changed the defendant to the City of New York and gave Sowell 60 days to file an amended complaint identifying the people involved and explaining what each person did. The court also allowed him to use placeholder names for unknown defendants.
Judge Swain ruled that Sowell had not alleged a city policy, custom, or practice causing the alleged violations, as required for a civil-rights claim against a municipality. She granted leave to amend, warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless Services · No. 1:23-cv-05346
- Laura Swain
- June 11, 2024
Background
Randy Sowell filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action had been separated from an earlier related proceeding involving Sowell. The court granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Sowell sought to assert claims against New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) shelter staff and DHS police concerning events at various shelters. According to the complaint, his parole officer required him to reside at Bellevue Men’s Shelter. Sowell alleged continuing problems with shelter staff and DHS police, including problems receiving subway cards needed to report to parole and public-assistance offices. He also alleged that his bed was given to someone else after he missed curfew because he had been held at the parole office for much of the day.
Sowell alleged that he was transferred to Camba Atlantic shelter in Brooklyn and was retaliated against because of complaints about Bellevue Men’s Shelter. He further alleged that problems with transportation cards led to his being assaulted by shelter staff and sprayed with pepper spray or mace by DHS police. He said that he was banned from Bellevue Men’s Shelter after a supervisor made allegedly false claims that he threatened her.
Screening standard
Because Sowell was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings receive a liberal reading, but still must provide enough factual detail to make a legally plausible claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Claims against DHS
The court dismissed Sowell’s claims against DHS because most New York City agencies lack the legal capacity to be sued separately. The court explained that claims against such agencies generally must be brought against the City of New York.
Because the complaint showed a clear intent to sue the City, the court construed it as asserting claims against the City of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to remove DHS as the defendant and add the City of New York. The court stated that this change was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.
Municipal liability
To state a claim under Section 1983 against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and that the violation was caused by a municipal policy, custom, or practice. The court found that Sowell alleged violations of his rights but did not identify a city policy, custom, or practice that caused those violations.
The court therefore granted Sowell leave to file an amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to support municipal liability under Section 1983 against the City of New York.
Excessive-force and retaliation allegations
The court said that, to pursue excessive-force or retaliation claims against shelter staff or DHS police, Sowell must restate those claims in the amended complaint, identify the individuals responsible, and describe what each person did or failed to do. If he could not identify an individual by name, he could use a John Doe or Jane Doe designation.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court granted Sowell 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the defendants, state the relevant facts for each claim, describe the approximate time and location of each event, explain his injuries, and state the relief sought. It would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Sowell would have to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider.
The court directed that no summons would issue at that time. It warned that if Sowell did not timely comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.