Cavallo v. HPD Section 8

Background

Ronald Cavallo proceeded without a lawyer and sued the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and Goddard Riverside Community Center. He did not identify a basis for federal jurisdiction, but the court interpreted his references to violated “civil liberties” and housing as potentially asserting claims under the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Cavallo alleged that, after living in a New York City shelter, he was transferred to a single-room-occupancy unit. He described a neighboring hoarder, roach infestations, and shared areas that were also infested. He then applied for a transfer to a Goddard Riverside single-room-occupancy unit. He alleged that conditions there included drug activity, attempted physical harm, violence, noise, fire alarms, and inadequate management and social work. The opinion states that it was unclear whether some of the described conditions occurred before or after the transfer to Goddard Riverside.

Cavallo alleged that he experienced inadequate housing for 14 to 15 years, developed tremors and increased emotional stress, and suffered from heart disease and hypertension. He also stated that he had applied for Social Security disability benefits. He sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening standard for complaints filed without prepayment of fees. Under that standard, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and give defendants fair notice of the allegations.

The court dismissed the claims against HPD because, as a New York City agency, HPD is not an entity that can generally be sued. Because Cavallo appeared to intend to sue the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk of Court to replace HPD with the City in the caption. The court stated that this replacement was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

The court also found that the complaint did not comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement of the facts supporting relief. Cavallo did not identify the single-room-occupancy location where the roach infestation allegedly occurred, describe specific unlawful conduct by the City or Goddard Riverside, or connect the alleged events to either defendant well enough to provide notice. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Fair Housing Act claim

The court construed the complaint as potentially asserting a claim under the FHA’s disability-discrimination provision because Cavallo described health conditions and an application for disability benefits. The court explained that an FHA claim requires plausible allegations that the plaintiff belonged to a protected class and suffered an adverse housing action because of that protected status.

The court found that Cavallo did not allege that the City or Goddard Riverside discriminated against him because of a disability. It granted him leave to amend to allege facts supporting a disability-discrimination claim against the City, Goddard Riverside, or both.

Section 1983 claim

The court dismissed Cavallo’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that can provide a remedy when a state or local government causes a constitutional-rights violation. The court explained that there is no constitutional right to access housing and that a municipal claim also requires allegations of a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation. Because Cavallo could not state a constitutional housing claim against the City based on the alleged living conditions, the court dismissed the municipal-liability claim under § 1983 for failure to state a claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court gave Cavallo 60 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so facts and claims he wants to retain must be included again. The court directed him to identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, each defendant’s conduct, and the relief sought.

The court stated that if Cavallo does not timely amend, and cannot show good cause for the failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court dismissed the claims against HPD, directed the Clerk to terminate HPD as a defendant and add the City of New York, kept the action open until judgment is entered, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.