Askins v. Prestige Management Inc.

Background

Delroy Askins proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying the filing fee in advance. He sued Prestige Management Inc. and Lowell Hendricks, whom the court understood to be the superintendent of his building.

Askins alleged that on January 10, 2024, the superintendent threatened him, followed him into an elevator, choked him, and beat him. He alleged that a security guard saw the incident but did not help, that police did not arrest either person, and that building management did not check on him or apologize.

Askins separately alleged that he gave a security guard $25 to deliver to the driver bringing his medical supplies and to leave the supplies with the guard. He said the guard claimed the supplies were not delivered, but that the supplies were later found by police. Askins also alleged that the superintendent denied him access to the building’s community room. He sought $10 in damages and an order requiring working cameras in all blind spots, including elevators.

Constitutional claims

The court treated Askins’s constitutional-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires a constitutional or federal-law violation by a person acting for the government, known as acting “under color of state law.”

The court held that Prestige Management and Hendricks were private parties and that Askins did not allege that they worked for a state or local government. The court also explained that providing housing, including federally funded or federally regulated housing, does not by itself make a private housing provider a government actor. It therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. It explained that the employment and private-public-accommodation parts of the Americans with Disabilities Act did not apply based on the allegations. The court assumed, without deciding, that the building was public housing covered by the public-entity part of that law, and also assumed that the Rehabilitation Act applied because Askins alleged that the building received funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Even with those assumptions, the court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims. Askins referred to having a health aide and receiving medical supplies, but did not describe the nature of his disability. He also did not allege facts showing that the assault, the handling of his medical supplies, or the community-room denial happened because of his disability.

The court likewise dismissed the Fair Housing Act claims. It found that Askins did not allege facts showing that he had a disability covered by that law or that the defendants’ actions were motivated by disability discrimination.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Askins may have been asserting.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court granted Askins permission to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies, particularly regarding the disability-discrimination claims. If he does not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the court stated that the Clerk of Court will be directed to enter judgment.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Askins fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.