Lastra v. Millennium Downtown New York Hotel
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lastra v. Millenium Downtown New York Hotel, Judge Swain dismissed James Lastra’s constitutional-rights suit because he did not show the private hotel acted for the state.
James Lastra’s federal constitutional-rights claims against the Millenium Downtown New York Hotel were dismissed. The hotel prevailed at the screening stage because Lastra did not allege that it acted under color of state law.
What happened
In Lastra v. Millenium Downtown New York Hotel, James Lastra alleged that a hotel employee electronically unlocked his hotel-room door without permission or warning while he and a female companion/model were inside. He sought damages and court orders, claiming emotional distress, humiliation, and harm to his reputation.
The court dismissed Lastra’s claims under Section 1983, a law allowing lawsuits for violations of federal rights by people acting for the state. The court held that Lastra did not allege facts showing the private hotel acted as a state actor. The court also denied permission to amend because it found the defect could not be fixed.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The court also denied Lastra’s fee-waiver status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lastra v. Millennium Downtown New York Hotel · No. 1:24-cv-02603
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 7, 2024
Background
James Lastra, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Millenium Downtown New York Hotel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on April 2, 2023, while he was renting a room at the hotel in New York, New York, a hotel employee electronically unlocked the locked room door without his permission, knocking, or warning. Lastra alleged that he was inside with a female companion/model, who became ill after the intrusion. He also alleged that hotel video cameras existed and stated that he intended to seek the recordings through discovery. He claimed emotional distress, humiliation, and damage to his reputation, and sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.
The court had previously allowed Lastra to proceed without paying court fees in advance. It then reviewed the complaint under the statute governing such cases, which requires dismissal if an action is frivolous, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, but those filings still must provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.
Section 1983 claim
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. This second requirement generally means that the defendant was exercising power connected to state authority. Private parties usually are not state actors for Section 1983 purposes.
The court determined that the hotel was a private hotel and that Lastra alleged no facts showing it acted as a state actor when the door was allegedly unlocked. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court denied Lastra permission to amend his complaint because it concluded that the defect could not be cured by amendment. The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.