Katsnelson v. Department of Homeless Services, NYC

Background

Valery Katsnelson, appearing without a lawyer and proceeding without prepaying court fees, sued the New York City Department of Homeless Services under federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that, since December 2023, he had lived at “Julio’s Place,” a homeless shelter in Manhattan. He claimed that many residents were drug-addicted and violent, that management failed to protect residents, and that residents could possess and use drugs and weapons in the shelter. He also alleged inadequate security and unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

Katsnelson alleged that another resident assaulted him on April 10, 2024, causing hearing and memory loss. He attributed the conditions to the Department of Homeless Services and sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

Because Katsnelson was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked authority to rule. The court said that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously, but they still must include enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court dismissed any Section 1983 claims based on the shelter’s conditions. Section 1983 is a federal civil-rights law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by a state or local government actor. The court held that there is no federal constitutional right to housing, adequate housing, or placement in a particular type or quality of shelter. Katsnelson’s allegations that he was a senior citizen living in an undesirable and unsafe shelter therefore did not state a Section 1983 claim.

The court separately dismissed the claims against the Department of Homeless Services because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court considered that Katsnelson might have intended to sue the City of New York instead, but it declined to interpret the complaint that way because he had not alleged facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his federal rights.

The court did not decide whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—because it granted permission to file an amended complaint and would address that issue later if necessary.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Katsnelson may file an amended complaint asserting available facts supporting a Section 1983 claim against the City of New York. If he does not file one within the permitted time, the court stated that the clerk will be directed to enter judgment.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Katsnelson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.