Avila v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Jimmy Avila, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued the New York City Housing Authority under the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the Housing Authority denied him an equal opportunity in its housing-affordability program and discriminated against him based on his disability, race, and gender. He also alleged that he needed stable housing and specific accommodations because of his disability and that the Housing Authority disregarded his disabilities and domestic-violence-victim status. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

Screening standard

Because Avila was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make the claimed violations plausible.

Claims and analysis

Fair Housing Act. The court assumed, for purposes of the order, that Avila was protected by the Fair Housing Act because of his disability, race, and gender. It nevertheless found that he alleged no facts showing adverse treatment at his current apartment or that the Housing Authority acted against him because of those characteristics. The court dismissed the Fair Housing Act claims for failure to state a claim.

Rehabilitation Act. To state a Rehabilitation Act claim, Avila needed to allege facts showing that he was a qualified person with a disability, that the defendant was covered by the statute, and that he was denied participation in or benefits from the defendant’s services, programs, or activities—or otherwise discriminated against—because of his disability. The court found that he alleged no facts showing such a denial or discrimination and dismissed this claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act. The court applied the same discrimination standard to Avila’s Title II disability claim, except that Title II does not require the defendant to be covered by the Rehabilitation Act. For the same reasons given for the Rehabilitation Act claim, the court dismissed the Title II claim for failure to state a claim.

Equal protection under Section 1983. The court interpreted Avila’s allegation that the Housing Authority was busy housing “100,000 illegal immigrants” as an equal-protection claim based on allegedly more favorable treatment of other people seeking housing. The court explained that an equal-protection claim requires adverse treatment compared with similarly situated people and treatment based on an impermissible consideration. It found that Avila, who sought permanent housing appropriate for someone with a disability, and recently arrived migrants, who sought temporary housing in New York City’s shelter system, were not similarly situated. The court therefore dismissed this claim as well.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court concluded that Avila might be able to state a valid claim by alleging additional facts. If he did not file an amended complaint within 30 days, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.