Gadson v. Riverbay Corporation

Background

Gregory Austin Gadson, who was representing himself and had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, sued Riverbay Corporation. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and purported to assert retaliation claims under the Fair Housing Act, constitutional and conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. He requested an unspecified temporary restraining order, an order seeking to move a state-court matter to federal court, and declaratory relief concerning his alleged fiduciary status and Riverbay’s alleged violations of federal law.

Gadson alleged that he lawfully resided at property managed by Riverbay and had submitted documents concerning succession under Mitchell-Lama housing policy and governing bylaws. He further alleged that Riverbay had not issued a stock share. The court said that the complaint and most of Gadson’s later submissions were difficult to understand. Some later materials concerned a New York City Civil Court housing case involving Gadson and Riverbay, including an eviction notice. Because Gadson filed the federal action as the plaintiff and did not follow the statutory requirements for a defendant removing a state-court case, the court treated his filing as a complaint originally brought in federal court.

Jurisdiction and claims

Federal district courts generally have federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. They may also have diversity jurisdiction over state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in dispute.

The court dismissed Gadson’s claims invoking federal-question jurisdiction because he alleged no facts showing an actual claim under the Fair Housing Act, Sections 1983 or 1985, or the Administrative Procedure Act. The court noted that, even if he supplied facts supporting those claims, his Fair Housing Act retaliation allegations did not identify protected activity, Riverbay’s knowledge of that activity, adverse action, or a causal connection. The court also noted that Riverbay was a private corporation and therefore Gadson had not alleged that it was a state actor for purposes of a constitutional claim under Section 1983. His conspiracy claims were vague and unsupported, and the Administrative Procedure Act applies to federal agencies rather than private corporations.

The court also dismissed any state-law claims based on diversity jurisdiction. Gadson alleged that he was a citizen of the Bronx, New York, but did not allege Riverbay’s state citizenship. He also alleged few, if any, facts supporting an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court granted leave to amend so that Gadson could allege facts establishing both complete diversity and the required amount in controversy.

Immediate injunctive relief

The court denied Gadson’s requests for immediate injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order, because his filings did not show a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The denial was without prejudice to requesting such relief again in an amended complaint that establishes federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted Gadson 30 days to file an amended complaint. If he does not do so within that period, the court stated that the Clerk will be directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.