Uribe v. Ponce

Background

Mary Ann Uribe, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Daniel Ponce and eight other named defendants. The court had granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee and therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires screening and dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Uribe alleged that she was a disabled senior living at Stuart Pratt Manor and that defendants retaliated against her after she reported alleged elder abuse, organized tenant meetings, circulated a petition, and complained about cockroaches and heat conditions. She alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and unspecified federal health and safety laws, among other matters.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because its jurisdiction section was not short and plain, and because the claims were mixed into the factual allegations rather than separately identified. As a result, the court could not determine the basis for each claim or which claims were asserted against which defendants.

The court also found that Uribe had not established federal jurisdiction. It concluded that she had not stated a viable federal claim and that diversity jurisdiction was not available.

On the Americans with Disabilities Act claims, the court explained that the employment provisions did not apply because the allegations did not concern employment. It concluded that the defendants did not qualify as public entities under the Act’s public-services provision and that the residential housing facility did not qualify as a public accommodation under the Act’s public-accommodations provision. The court therefore found that Uribe had failed to state an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against any named defendant.

On the First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court explained that this statute requires the challenged conduct to be attributable to a state actor. The court found that all named defendants were private individuals or a private entity and that Uribe alleged no facts connecting their conduct to the government. The court therefore found that the § 1983 First Amendment claims failed to state a viable claim. The court also stated that a direct First Amendment claim against the defendants would fail as a matter of law.

The court found that Uribe’s references to federal health and safety law were too vague because she did not identify a particular federal law that defendants allegedly violated. The court noted that Uribe had not asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act and expressed no opinion on whether she might be able to state such claims in an amended complaint.

Order

The court ordered Uribe to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. By January 31, 2025, she could either file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or file a response explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient. The court vacated the scheduled case-management conference.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that if Uribe did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B).