Recant v. DeSales Assisted Living Corp.

Background

Robin Recant, who was representing herself, sued De Sales Assisted Living Corp.; Vista Assisted Living; Vista’s CEO, Nicole Atanasio; Vista’s Director of Nursing, John Hill; New York City Housing Court Justice Francis Ortiz; and the New York State Department of Health. She alleged that events at her Vista apartment occurred from September 2024 through the time of filing. Her listed claims concerned the warranty of habitability, tenant harassment, unrepaired utilities, and failure to maintain the apartment in livable condition.

The complaint itself did not include supporting facts. Recant instead referred to an order to show cause in which she described alleged threats and physical and mental abuse, a nonworking toilet, heating problems, staff or residents entering her apartment, missing clothing, shoes, and jewelry, lack of hot water, and objects or substances left on the floor. She also stated that police had not acted despite her reports. She sought money damages and an order restraining harassment by staff and other residents. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Legal Standards

Because Recant invoked federal-question jurisdiction, the court interpreted the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing that each defendant acted under color of state law—that is, through authority or conduct attributable to the government. The court also applied the screening rules for complaints filed without paying filing fees, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. A complaint must include enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

Claims Against De Sales, Vista, Atanasio, and Hill

The court held that De Sales and Vista were private entities and that Atanasio and Hill did not work for a state or other government body. It stated that private parties generally are not liable under Section 1983 and that receiving government funding, by itself, does not turn private conduct into government action. The court therefore dismissed the claims against De Sales, Vista, Atanasio, and Hill for failure to state a claim.

Claims Against Justice Ortiz

The court held that judges have absolute immunity from damage claims based on acts taken within their judicial responsibilities. It concluded that Recant’s claims against Justice Ortiz appeared to arise from his role in her Housing Court matter. The court therefore dismissed those damage claims because Ortiz was immune and, on that basis, treated them as frivolous under the filing-fee statute.

Claims Against the New York State Department of Health

The court held that the Department of Health is an arm of New York State. It explained that the state’s constitutional immunity generally bars suits against the state and its instrumentalities in federal court, and that New York had not waived that immunity for this action. The court also stated that Congress had not removed that immunity through Section 1983. It therefore dismissed Recant’s Section 1983 claims against the Department of Health.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court found that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because it alleged no facts in the complaint itself. In light of Recant’s self-represented status, it dismissed the complaint with 30 days’ leave to replead. Any amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of facts showing how each named defendant violated Recant’s rights.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to terminate the requests for a hearing and a protective order as unnecessary. The court stated that it would direct entry of judgment if Recant did not file an amended complaint within the allowed time. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The matter was to remain open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.