Pownall El v. S. Realty

Background

Annalicia Deandra Pownall El filed a complaint against S. Realty, LLC; its owner, Lawrence Spitz; and employees identified as “Mark” and “Manny.” She proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. She alleged that the defendants violated her rights in connection with her eviction.

In an October 28, 2024 order, the court directed Pownall El to amend her complaint to address deficiencies. The court had explained that the defendants were private parties and therefore generally could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations. The court also stated that the allegations did not establish a due-process claim because state-law remedies were available, and did not state claims under the Fourth Amendment or federal disability-discrimination laws. The court dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Pownall El filed an amended complaint on November 27, 2024. She asserted claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments, alleging deprivation of due process and cruel and unusual punishment. She sought reinstatement in the apartment despite the state-court eviction judgment and requested damages.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the amended complaint for the reasons stated in its October 28 order. It found that Pownall El did not allege facts showing that any defendant, all of whom were private parties, acted under color of state law. It further found that she did not allege facts stating a claim for violation of her constitutional rights.

The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims; under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may decline that authority after dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a fee-waived case that fails to state a claim. The court declined to grant another opportunity to amend because it found no indication that the defects could be cured through further amendment. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.