Avila v. ACACIA Network, Inc.

Background

Jimmy Avila, representing himself, brought two related housing-discrimination cases. He sued ACACIA Network, Inc.; ACACIA employees Aja Douglas and Trevor Griffiths; 1212 Grant Realty, LLC and its employee Manny Stein; and Caren Abate, an employee of the New York State Office of Mental Health.

In the September Action, Avila alleged failure to accommodate a disability, retaliation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress under federal, state, and city laws. In the November Action, he alleged retaliation, disability discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Avila alleged that he had schizoaffective disorder and sought a transfer from an apartment he described as uninhabitable, moldy, and harmful to his health. He also alleged that defendants terminated his tenancy because he had filed lawsuits against them.

Reports and legal standards

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended dismissing both actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible. She also recommended a filing restriction in the November Action. The court reviewed the September Action recommendation for clear error because no objections were filed. It considered Avila’s objections to the November Action but found them too general and unrelated to the magistrate judge’s analysis to change the result.

Although courts must read complaints by people without lawyers liberally, the court explained that this does not excuse a plaintiff from providing facts supporting the claims. A court may not create facts or legal arguments that the complaint does not contain.

Reasons for dismissal

The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss the September Action in full. The opinion states that the complaint lacked important factual details, including the extent to which defendants knew about Avila’s disability and when the alleged events occurred.

The court also adopted the recommendation to dismiss all claims in the November Action. It dismissed the claims against Abate because the complaint contained no allegations about her. Any claim against Abate in her official capacity would also be barred by state sovereign immunity. The court did not grant leave to amend official-capacity claims against Abate because amendment would be futile.

For the retaliation claims, the court found that Avila did not allege facts showing a causal connection between his lawsuits and the termination of his tenancy. ACACIA’s defendants were not Avila’s landlords, while the termination notice was signed by Stein for 1212 Grant Realty. Two of the lawsuits were filed years before the tenancy ended, and the complaint did not allege that the Grant Realty defendants knew about the 2023 small-claims lawsuit before the termination. The court also dismissed the disability-discrimination claims because the complaint did not support an inference that the ACACIA defendants discriminated against Avila because of his disability.

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because the alleged housing discrimination and retaliation were not sufficiently extreme or outrageous under New York law. The court also dismissed claims against the non-appearing Grant Realty defendants because the same reasons applied to those claims and the reports gave Avila an opportunity to address the proposed dismissals.

Guardian ad litem request

Avila asked the court to appoint a guardian ad litem, meaning a representative to protect the interests of a litigant who cannot adequately represent himself. Judge Parker denied that request because Avila did not provide the required evidence of legal incompetence. The district court adopted that decision, noting that Avila had appeared responsive and comprehensible during a case-management conference.

Filing injunction and disposition

The ACACIA defendants sought a broad injunction barring Avila from filing lawsuits against ACACIA and its affiliates in federal and state courts nationwide. The court declined to expand the narrower restriction recommended by Judge Parker. It issued an injunction barring Avila from filing civil actions in the Southern District of New York against ACACIA or any of its affiliates without first obtaining permission from the court.

The court adopted both reports in full and dismissed both suits. It granted Avila leave to amend claims for which he had not previously had that opportunity, except for official-capacity claims against Abate. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Avila a copy of the decision and terminate the pending motions.