Goldstein v. The Bowery

Background

Jesse S. Goldstein filed the action without a lawyer and named more than 30 defendants. He alleged that various defendants were involved in the loss of his New York law license, the reduction or loss of assets from his parents’ estate, the loss of property and Social Security benefits, his exclusion from the Bowery Mission shelter, and the police response to events involving the shelter. He asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and New York law.

Goldstein alleged that after staying at the Bowery Mission in June 2024, his property and wallet went missing. He alleged that Bowery Mission staff excluded him from the shelter after he complained and insulted a staff member, and that the exclusion was motivated by antisemitism because he is Jewish. He also alleged that the Bowery Mission’s actions violated the Fair Housing Act and the Constitution.

The court had previously granted Goldstein permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Misjoinder and severance

The court grouped the allegations into five categories: claims concerning Goldstein’s law license; claims concerning his parents’ estate and related property; claims concerning exclusion from the Bowery Mission; claims that police officials failed to investigate; and claims concerning the alleged levy on Social Security benefits.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple defendants to be sued together only when the claims arise from the same transaction or series of events and involve a common legal or factual question. The court rejected Goldstein’s argument that joinder was proper because all defendants allegedly deprived him of property at different times. It concluded, for example, that the alleged levy on Social Security benefits was not connected to the alleged antisemitic exclusion from the Bowery Mission.

Under Rule 21, a court may sever improperly joined parties or claims. The court found that litigating the unrelated claims together would not promote efficiency, that severance would reduce confusion and prejudice, and that the different claims would require separate witnesses and evidence. It therefore severed the claims other than the shelter-exclusion claims against the Bowery Mission defendants.

The court dismissed the severed claims against Eric Adams, Yisroel Botnick, Edward Caban, Tao Chen, Andrew Clateman, Joyce Clateman, Peter Clateman, Jamie Dimon, Robert Freedman, Martin Goldstein, John Gonzalez, Martin Gruenberg, Human Resources Administration (SNAP), J.P. Morgan Chase, Fedy Jacobson, Barry Kamins, John Kiefer, Guy James Mangano, Abraham Niyazov, Barton Rack, The City of New York, The J.P. Morgan Chase Defendants, The NYPD Defendants, The New York Law License Defendants, Saul Clateman, and The Troy Avenue Defendants. The dismissal was without prejudice to repleading those claims in a separate state or federal action, as appropriate.

Fair Housing Act claims

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, based on characteristics including religion. To state an intentional-discrimination claim at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege that he belongs to a protected class, experienced relevant adverse treatment, and has facts suggesting at least a minimal inference that discrimination was a motivating factor.

The court held that Goldstein’s allegations did not plausibly suggest discriminatory motivation. It found that his name possibly suggesting that he is Jewish, together with his allegation that the defendants therefore knew his religion, did not support an inference of discriminatory intent. The court also noted that Goldstein had previously been allowed to stay at the Bowery Mission many times. It further stated that, even if the exclusion seemed harsher than warranted for insulting staff, that did not state a Fair Housing Act claim. The court also noted that district courts in the Southern District of New York have concluded that the Fair Housing Act does not apply to shelters, although the Second Circuit had not decided that issue.

The court dismissed Goldstein’s Fair Housing Act claims against the Bowery defendants for failure to state a claim.

Constitutional and Section 1983 claims

Goldstein characterized the Bowery Mission’s ban as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court treated this as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state authority.

The court concluded that nothing in the complaint suggested that the Bowery Mission was a state actor. It explained that the complaint described the Bowery Mission as a faith-based organization and that providing shelter to homeless people is not a government-only function. The court therefore found no basis to treat the Bowery Mission’s challenged conduct as fairly attributable to the state. It held that Goldstein failed to state a Section 1983 claim based on his constitutional rights. The court also stated that, even if the Bowery Mission were a state actor, the Eighth Amendment claim would fail because its protection against cruel and unusual punishment applies to criminal and certain civil punishments imposed by the government. The court further stated that the Equal Protection Clause could not support a Section 1983 claim against these defendants because they were not state actors.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Goldstein was representing himself, the court generally considered whether he should have an opportunity to correct the complaint. It did not grant leave to replead the severed claims in this action because those defendants and claims had been dismissed without prejudice for refiling in a separate case.

For the claims against the Bowery Mission; Christian Herald Association; James Winans; Elizabeth Carabello; Supervisor Julia (or Julie) Doe; John and Jane Doe volunteers; and Kathy Doe, the court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim. It granted Goldstein 30 days to amend and replead those claims. The court directed that the claims would be dismissed with prejudice if Goldstein did not file an amended pleading or if the amended pleading remained insufficient. The court kept the matter open until a civil judgment was entered and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.