Washington v. DHS Department of Homeless Services

Background

Sandra A. Washington, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NYC DHS and WIN SHELTER. She alleged that, between February 2020 and May 2024, she experienced very dirty and unsanitary conditions and drinking water allegedly mixed with toxic substances at the WIN shelter. She also referred to physical and mental abuse of a shelter resident, reported that she called police after being physically threatened, and stated that she observed other homeless residents’ rights being violated.

Washington further alleged that NYC DHS violated its guidelines and federal disability laws by failing to secure permanent housing for her in a timely manner. She said she received a housing voucher, but it did not provide enough funding for an apartment in New York City, and that shelter staff did not help obtain additional funds. She requested permanent housing and $9.2 million in monetary compensation.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of a self-represented plaintiff’s fee-free complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally valid claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against NYC DHS

The court held that NYC DHS, as an agency of New York City, lacks the legal capacity to be sued in its own name under the New York City Charter. The court explained that Washington could name the City of New York instead if she amended her complaint. To state a claim under Section 1983—a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local actors—she would need to identify a city policy, custom, or practice and allege facts showing that it caused a violation of her rights.

The court also noted that the Constitution generally does not require the government to protect a person from harm when the person is not in government custody, and does not guarantee housing of a particular quality. It further noted uncertainty about whether the Fair Housing Act applies to a shelter context, because some courts have concluded that a homeless person using a shelter is not a buyer or renter under that statute.

Claims involving WIN SHELTER

The court construed Washington’s allegations about abuse and unsanitary conditions as an attempted Section 1983 claim against WIN SHELTER. It held that Washington could not pursue claims on behalf of other shelter residents because she is not a lawyer. The court also explained that Section 1983 generally applies only to conduct fairly attributable to the government, not to private parties.

The court found that Washington had not alleged facts showing that WIN SHELTER acted as a government actor. It stated that providing homeless services, even under a government contract or government regulation, does not by itself make a private organization a state actor. The court therefore found that the alleged shelter conditions did not state a Section 1983 constitutional claim against WIN SHELTER.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court construed Washington’s allegations as potentially asserting a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which addresses disability discrimination by private businesses and organizations that provide public accommodations. For purposes of the order, the court assumed that WIN SHELTER qualified as a public accommodation.

The court found the allegations insufficient because Washington did not identify her disability, explain what services were denied, or clarify whether she was alleging intentional discrimination, denial of a reasonable accommodation, or another theory. The court also held that failure to receive permanent housing within timelines set by state or local law was not, by itself, enough to state a federal disability claim. The court noted that private individuals cannot obtain money damages under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court separately found that Washington had not stated a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. She did not allege that WIN SHELTER received federal financial assistance, did not plead facts showing that she was denied benefits because of her disability, and did not allege the intentional discrimination required for damages under that statute.

State-law claims and leave to amend

After finding that the federal claims were not adequately pleaded, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state claims Washington might be asserting.

Because Washington might be able to add facts supporting a valid claim, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint, include any facts and claims she wishes to preserve, identify the relevant people and defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, explain her injuries, and state the relief requested. The court stated that if she did not amend within the permitted time and could not show good cause, it would dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a claim and decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.