Williams v. 647 E. 229th St. Bronx LLC

Background

Robert Williams, who was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, brought a Fair Housing Act case against Eli Weissman and 647 East 229th Street LLC. Williams alleged that he lived in a basement apartment in a building with four or fewer units and that earlier proceedings had determined his tenancy was legal and protected by New York rent-stabilization laws.

Williams alleged that Weissman and the LLC purchased the building in February 2022 and then attempted to change the terms and conditions of his tenancy. He described several alleged violations of state laws and regulations, including work on vacant apartments before government approval, roofing materials blocking his door, and inadequate notice before apartment access. He also alleged that the owners started a pending proceeding to terminate his tenancy. Williams identified himself as Black and alleged that the owner was White and had shown that he believed Black people were stupid. He sought damages for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the standards governing complaints filed without advance payment of fees. Those standards require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible rather than merely possible.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits private housing-market actors from refusing to sell or rent, or making a dwelling unavailable, because of race. It also prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a rental because of race. To plead intentional discrimination, Williams had to allege facts showing that he belonged to a protected group, experienced relevant adverse treatment, and faced actions suggesting a discriminatory motive.

The court found that Williams adequately alleged that he was protected based on race and that the defendants took adverse actions, including disputing the legality of his tenancy and starting a proceeding to end it. But the court found no sufficient factual allegations supporting an inference that the defendants acted because of race. It treated Williams’s statement that the owner had shown he believed Black people were stupid as conclusory because Williams did not explain what the defendants did or said that demonstrated a racially discriminatory motive. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a Fair Housing Act claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court said Williams could amend to provide additional facts. If he did not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the court would direct entry of judgment dismissing the Fair Housing Act claim for failure to state a claim and would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. The order did not prevent Williams from raising discrimination or retaliation arguments in the pending state landlord-tenant proceedings, and it stated that any amended Fair Housing Act claim could require consideration of the effect of those pending proceedings.