Feliciano v. Aguirre

Background

Michael Feliciano, who was representing himself, sued Andres Aguirre under the Fair Housing Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Feliciano alleged that he visited the housing office on May 23, 2024, to submit a request for a disability-related emergency move because his medical and mental-health issues were worsening. He said he explained that his landlord was not following the lease agreements and that he felt an urgent need to move because of safety concerns and poor living conditions.

According to the complaint, Feliciano gave Aguirre a completed reasonable-accommodation form. Aguirre reviewed it for less than 30 seconds, returned it, and gave Feliciano a regular move-request form and a letter acknowledging his participation in the Section 8 program. Feliciano alleged that Aguirre told him to use the regular form instead of processing the accommodation request. Feliciano sought damages and an order requiring Aguirre to process the request.

Legal standard

Because Feliciano was allowed to file without prepaying fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court was required to dismiss a claim that was frivolous, sought relief from an immune defendant, or failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to include enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, those complaints still must provide facts supporting a legal claim.

Fair Housing Act claim

The Fair Housing Act prohibits disability-based discrimination in housing and includes refusing reasonable accommodations when an accommodation may be necessary to give a person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The court held that Feliciano had not alleged enough facts to state such a claim. The complaint said only that his medical and mental-health issues were worsened by problems with his landlord. It did not adequately describe a covered disability, the accommodation Feliciano sought, or the connection between his disability and that accommodation. The court therefore dismissed the Fair Housing Act claim for failure to state a claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified person with a disability from its services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminating against that person because of the disability.

The court held that Feliciano had not stated an ADA claim. He did not allege facts showing that he was a qualified individual with a disability, and he did not state that he had been denied the opportunity to participate in Section 8 housing. The court said it was unclear whether Aguirre rejected the form because it was incomplete or rejected it after Feliciano explained his disability and the specific accommodation he wanted. The complaint also did not explain what happened after Aguirre told Feliciano to complete the regular move form. The court dismissed the ADA claim for failure to state a claim.

Leave to amend and other actions

Because additional facts might allow Feliciano to state a valid Fair Housing Act or ADA claim, the court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court said an amended complaint should describe his disability, the accommodation he sought, and whether he gave that information to Aguirre with the request. If Feliciano did not amend within the allowed time, the clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

The court referred Feliciano to the City Bar Justice Center’s Pro Se Law Clinic, which assists self-represented parties but is not part of the court and cannot file documents for them. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.