Arrington v. MZ 2640 Owner LLP

Background

Kelvin Arrington, appearing without a lawyer, sued MZ 2640 Owner LLP, Desiree Parkey, and MZ Housing Development of Fund Co. He invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the False Claims Act, and asserted state-law claims for defamation and harassment. The claims arose from a state housing-court eviction proceeding in which Defendants allegedly asserted that Arrington’s subsidized apartment was not his primary residence and that Shanta Green was operating a day care business in the apartment.

Arrington alleged that he rented a subsidized apartment in Manhattan and that Defendants knew he had a disability and received Social Security. He sought damages for defamation and harassment, restoration of his subsidies, and relocation to an apartment with a walk-in shower. The opinion states that the housing court found the property owners had not provided enough evidence to prove that Green lived in the apartment and failed to report income, or that Arrington did not live there.

Green’s claims

Green was listed as a co-plaintiff, but only Arrington signed the complaint. The court held that a nonlawyer may represent only himself and cannot litigate another person’s claims. It therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims Arrington was asserting on Green’s behalf. The court stated that an amended complaint should list Arrington as the sole plaintiff unless Green chooses to pursue claims arising from the same facts and signs the amended complaint.

ADA claims

The court dismissed Arrington’s ADA claims for failure to state a claim. It explained that Title III of the ADA generally covers access to public accommodations operated by private entities, but residential housing does not qualify as a public accommodation. Arrington’s claims against the private entities concerned his apartment.

The court also found that Arrington had not stated a claim under Title II, which prohibits discrimination by public entities. He did not allege that a public entity provided his housing, and he asserted the claims against private entities. The court noted that disability-discrimination claims involving housing may potentially arise under the Rehabilitation Act or the Fair Housing Act, but Arrington had not alleged facts about his disability, facts showing that Defendants brought the housing-court action because of his disability, or facts showing that he requested the walk-in-shower accommodation.

False Claims Act claims

The court dismissed the False Claims Act claims because Arrington was proceeding without a lawyer. A False Claims Act case brought by a private person on behalf of the United States is called a qui tam action, and the United States remains the real party in interest. The court held that a person cannot pursue such an action without a lawyer because the person is not asserting only his own interests. The court also stated that the complaint did not allege facts suggesting that anyone submitted a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government for approval.

State-law claims and leave to amend

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to decide related state-law claims, over any state-law claims for defamation or harassment. The court dismissed the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and granted Arrington 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing his claims. If he did not amend within that period, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.