Calderon v. City of New York

Background

Jason Calderon, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and other government entities over the City’s systems for housing homeless individuals compared with migrants and asylum seekers. The court had previously dismissed the New York State Department of Social Services on constitutional-immunity grounds, dismissed the United States Department of State based on sovereign immunity, and substituted the City of New York for the New York City Department of Homeless Services.

Calderon appeared to assert four claims: an equal-protection claim based on U.S. citizens’ use of the City’s shelter system while migrants were housed in hotels; a claim that housing migrants in hotels harmed their ability to assimilate into U.S. culture; a due-process claim; and a claim under the Fair Housing Act.

The City moved to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Parker recommended granting the motion and dismissing the case without prejudice. Calderon did not respond to the motion, and neither party objected to the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Because no party objected, Judge Caproni reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

For the constitutional claims, the court construed the complaint as asserting an equal-protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain claims against state or local officials acting under state law. The court agreed that Calderon had not alleged enough facts to support an inference that he was treated unequally. The court also agreed that the Constitution does not provide a judicial remedy for every social or economic problem and does not guarantee access to housing of a particular quality.

The court further found that Calderon had not alleged a deprivation of liberty or property sufficient to support a due-process claim. As to claims concerning harms allegedly suffered by migrants, the court held that Calderon lacked standing because he did not allege that he was a migrant. Finally, the court agreed that the Fair Housing Act does not apply to individuals seeking free government shelter.

Disposition

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full, granted the City’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court stated that, because Calderon was representing himself, he might be able to allege additional facts supporting constitutional claims under Section 1983, assuming he had exhausted administrative remedies. The opinion also states that appellate review of the decision is precluded because neither party objected to the recommendation.