Avila v. ACACIA Network, Inc.

Background

Jimmy Avila proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. After an earlier order dismissed his original complaint but allowed him 30 days to amend, Avila filed an amended complaint. He asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law.

Avila alleged that he had mental and physical health conditions that qualified as disabilities. He described alleged problems involving his former and current apartments, including a lock change, failure to provide keys, refused rent payments, poor housing conditions, an alleged assault, arrest, psychiatric hospitalization, loss of property, and failures by government officials and housing-related organizations to provide oversight or accommodations.

Rulings on the claims

The court dismissed without prejudice any claims against Acacia Network, Inc., Aja Douglas, Trevor Griffiths, and 1212 Grant Realty LLC that Avila was also asserting in earlier related proceedings.

The court dismissed Avila’s disability-discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act against Acacia, Basics, Inc., Griffiths, Douglas, Jamar Crow, Charles Staten, 1212 Grant Realty LLC, and 1412 COL LLC for failure to state a claim. Although the court assumed Avila had a disability for purposes of these claims, it found that he alleged no facts showing that disability was at least a motivating factor in the challenged conduct.

The court dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claims against Acacia, Basics, the New York State Office of Mental Health, Adult Protective Services, 1212 Grant Realty LLC, and 1412 COL LLC for failure to state a claim. Avila alleged that Acacia and Basics received federal funding, but did not specify whether the other defendants received such funding. More importantly, the court found that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants denied him participation in or benefits from services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminated against him because of his disability.

The court dismissed the Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claims against the New York State Office of Mental Health and the City of New York for failure to state a claim. It found that the allegations of disability discrimination were conclusory and lacked factual support.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 and state-law claims against the New York State Office of Mental Health and Kim F. Ben-Atar in her official capacity. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally barred the claims against the state agency and the state official in her official capacity. It dismissed those claims against the agency ultimately for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It did the same for the official-capacity claims against Ben-Atar, except that prospective-injunction claims under the exception for ongoing violations by state officials were dismissed for failure to state a claim because the Constitution does not provide a right to housing benefits or assistance obtaining housing. The court also held that state-law claims seeking money damages against the state agency or a state official in an official capacity belonged in New York’s Court of Claims rather than federal court.

The court dismissed all claims against Adult Protective Services because it is an agency of the City of New York and is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court treated those claims, and the official-capacity Section 1983 claims against Thomas Glenoy, as claims against the City. It dismissed the City claims because Avila did not allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. It likewise dismissed the official-capacity claims against Glenoy and construed them as claims against the City.

The court dismissed the individual-capacity Section 1983 claims against Ben-Atar and Glenoy because Avila did not allege facts showing their direct and personal involvement in a constitutional violation. The court also explained that government officials generally have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Acacia, Basics, Griffiths, Douglas, Crow, Staten, 1212 Grant Realty LLC, and 1412 COL LLC for failure to state a claim. Those defendants were private entities or individuals, and Avila did not allege facts showing that they acted under color of state law. Public funding, government contracts, regulation, or government approval alone did not establish state action.

After dismissing the claims within its original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims that had not already been dismissed.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action, denied further leave to amend because Avila had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects and the court found further amendment would be futile, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.