Waheed v. Park

Background

Sehra Waheed, representing herself and proceeding without paying filing fees, sued Molly Wasow Park, Scott French, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Social Services, the Human Resources Administration, Trinity Bui, and Trinity Financing Investments Corporation. The court had dismissed her original complaint on April 14, 2025, but allowed her to amend limited claims.

Waheed’s original allegations concerned rent and storage-facility payments and applications for emergency cash and rental assistance from the Human Resources Administration. She alleged that the agency did not process her applications or ultimately denied them, despite administrative law judges directing the agency to process the applications and notify her of the results. She also alleged, based on statistics, that the agency did not timely process applications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly called food stamps.

The court’s earlier order dismissed claims against the city agencies because those agencies could not be sued as separate entities. It dismissed constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Park and French because Waheed did not allege their direct and personal involvement. It also dismissed her procedural due process theory concerning benefits because state law provided an adequate process for challenging benefits decisions, including a state-court proceeding known as an Article 78 proceeding. Finally, it dismissed the food-assistance processing claims because Waheed had not alleged that she personally applied or attempted to apply for those benefits, or that her application was untimely processed.

Amended Complaint

Waheed’s amended complaint repeated substantially the same allegations about the city agencies and officials. She also asserted a new Fair Housing Act claim against Park, French, the Human Resources Administration, and the City of New York, alleging that they failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for delay in litigation and caused financial hardship and medical injuries.

Waheed added Bui, described in the opinion as her former landlord, and Trinity Financing Investments Corporation, described as a company for which Bui was chief executive officer. Waheed asserted claims arising from her tenancy, alleged lease breaches, alleged housing discrimination, alleged failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and eviction-related events. She also asserted defamation, slander, and other state-law claims concerning the apartment and state-court eviction proceedings.

Rulings

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Social Services and the Human Resources Administration for failure to state a claim, for the reasons given in the earlier order. It also dismissed the remaining previously dismissed claims because the amended complaint did not cure the identified defects. Specifically, Waheed did not allege facts showing that Park and French were personally and directly involved in violating her rights; did not allege that she pursued Article 78 relief or was prevented from doing so; and did not allege facts giving her standing to challenge the processing times for food-assistance applications.

The court dismissed the claims against Bui and Trinity Financing Investments Corporation, and the Fair Housing Act claims, because they exceeded the limited scope of the permission to amend. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in a new civil action that complies with the federal rules governing joinder and pleading. The court denied further leave to amend because Waheed had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and had not cured its defects.

The court denied Waheed’s request for default judgment as moot. No summonses had issued and proper service had not occurred, and the action had been dismissed in its entirety. The court also denied as moot her request for a preliminary injunction seeking a stay of execution of a judgment in a separate medical malpractice case in New York County Civil Court.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action under the statute requiring screening of claims filed without filing fees, for failure to state a claim and lack of standing. It specified that the claims against Bui and Trinity Financing Investments Corporation and the Fair Housing Act claims were dismissed without prejudice to bringing them in a new civil action. It denied the requests for default judgment and preliminary injunctive relief as moot, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.