Avila v. Davis
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-03316
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Avila v. Davis, Judge Engelmayer dismissed claims against certain city agencies and ordered service on the remaining defendants.
Jimmy Avila and Mezie Oduka may continue pursuing claims against the City of New York and the remaining named defendants, subject to service; their claims against the specified New York City agencies were dismissed.
What happened
In Avila v. Davis, Jimmy Avila and Mezie Oduka, representing themselves, alleged that the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and state law. The court had allowed them to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the New York City Department of Homeless Services, Adult Protective Services, and City FHEPS because New York City agencies generally cannot be sued as separate entities. Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, the court treated allegations against those agencies as claims against the City of New York instead.
Judge Engelmayer ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the remaining named defendants. The court did not identify the John Doe or Jane Doe defendants for service because the complaint provided no identifying information or facts describing their involvement.
The detailed version
- Avila v. Davis · No. 1:25-cv-03316
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 14, 2025
Background
Jimmy Avila and Mezie Oduka, proceeding without lawyers, brought claims alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and state law. The defendants named in the caption include the City of New York, several city agencies or programs, private entities and individuals, and John Doe and Jane Doe defendants. The court had previously granted the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Claims Against City Agencies
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the New York City Department of Homeless Services, Adult Protective Services, and the City Family Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement, also identified as City FHEPS. Relying on New York City Charter section 396 and cited Second Circuit and Southern District of New York decisions, the court held that a New York City agency generally is not an entity that can be sued separately from the City.
Because the plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers, the court construed allegations against those agencies as allegations against the City of New York, which was also named as a defendant. The opinion does not decide the underlying Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, or state-law claims.
Service of Process
Because the plaintiffs were permitted to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form for each remaining defendant. The Clerk was directed to provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service so that it could serve the remaining defendants.
The court extended the service period until 90 days after summonses issue. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, the plaintiffs should request an extension. The order superseded an earlier directive requiring the plaintiffs to serve the defendants themselves.
The court declined at that time to issue an order helping identify the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants because the plaintiffs provided no identifying information about them and alleged no facts describing their involvement in the events.
Disposition
The court dismissed the claims against the specified New York City agencies and ordered service on the remaining named defendants. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer also directed the Clerk to mail specified court documents to the defendants and an information package to the plaintiffs.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.