Ellis v. NAICA Housing Development Fund Company, Inc.

Background

Jaezon Ellis proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without prepaying court fees. He sued NAICA Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., identified in the opinion as apparently a nonprofit agency engaged in homelessness prevention, along with two unidentified employees. Ellis alleged incidents at a facility on Tremont Avenue and at a bus terminal on Grand Concourse Avenue in the Bronx. The complaint gave dates in June and August but did not specify the year.

Ellis alleged that other residents assaulted or threatened him, that security staff failed to protect him, that a staff member used an offensive term directed at him, that staff failed to complete his laundry and left clothing moldy, and that clothing, shoes, and a computer were lost. He characterized his claims as negligent security, loss of property, and discrimination, and sought damages.

Federal claims

The court treated Ellis’s federal claims as potentially arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fair Housing Act. Section 1983 allows claims for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state authority, sometimes called a state actor.

The court concluded that NAICA’s provision of temporary housing did not make it a state actor. It explained that providing housing is not a function reserved exclusively to the government and that government funding or regulation, by itself, is not enough. The court therefore held that Ellis did not state a § 1983 claim against NAICA or its employees. The court also noted that private security guards generally are not state actors, while recognizing that some circumstances could produce a different result.

The court separately held that the failure-to-protect allegations did not state a federal claim even if the defendants could be treated as state actors. The Constitution generally does not require the government to protect people from harm caused by private individuals in circumstances where the person is not in government custody.

The court also rejected the property-loss claim as a federal due-process claim. It explained that a random and unauthorized loss of property generally does not violate procedural due process when state law provides an adequate remedy after the loss. The court found that New York law provides such remedies.

As to the Fair Housing Act, the court assumed without deciding that the NAICA facility qualified as a covered dwelling and that the Act could apply to discrimination in services at temporary or transitional housing. It nevertheless held that one offensive remark, without allegations of a severe and ongoing hostile environment or an adverse effect on housing, was insufficient to state a claim. The court dismissed any Fair Housing Act claim for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims and disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, because it had dismissed the federal claims and the case was still at an early stage.

The court dismissed the complaint and granted Ellis 30 days’ leave to replead, because it was unclear whether additional facts could support a valid federal claim. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. If Ellis did not file an amended complaint within the allowed period, the Clerk was to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until judgment was entered.