Blanco v. HUD

Background

Carlita Blanco filed the complaint without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court understood the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing certain claims against state officials; Bivens, which can allow certain claims against federal officials; and the Federal Tort Claims Act, which permits some tort claims against the federal government.

Blanco named “HUD” (which the court understood to mean the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development), Valerie Pels, and Comptroller Bill Lander. She alleged violations of “workers rights” and “human subject rights,” grant manipulation, use of her research proposal, favoritism, parental slavery or trafficking, and wage-related injuries. She sought approval of her grant, lost wages, an apology, and a letter dismissing charges filed by Judge Pels.

Screening standard

Because Blanco was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or raised claims over which the court lacked authority. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to give a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must include enough factual detail to make liability plausible.

Claims against HUD

The court dismissed all claims against HUD based on sovereign immunity, which generally prevents suits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has agreed to be sued. The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act waives that immunity for certain tort claims seeking money damages based on conduct by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Before bringing such a claim in federal court, however, a claimant must first submit an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a final written determination.

The court found that Blanco did not allege that she had completed this administrative process. The opinion states that any Federal Tort Claims Act claims were dismissed without prejudice if Blanco later filed a complaint after exhausting the required administrative remedies.

Claims against Judge Pels

The court held that judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. Blanco did not allege facts showing that Pels acted outside those responsibilities or outside her jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Pels based on judicial immunity.

The court also considered possible requests for injunctive or declaratory relief. It concluded that Blanco had not alleged either a violation of a prior declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable, and had not alleged that she could not appeal any state-court proceedings. The court therefore dismissed those claims as well, characterizing the claims against Pels as frivolous for purposes of the filing-fee screening statute.

Claims against Comptroller Lander

For a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege the defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A government official cannot be held liable merely because the official supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court found that Blanco alleged no facts showing how Lander was personally involved in the events at issue and dismissed the claims against him for failure to state a claim.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), with 30 days’ leave to replead. This allowed Blanco an opportunity to file an amended complaint addressing the defects identified by the court. If she did not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The court ordered the matter held open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.