Moore v. Model Cities

Background

Plaintiff Mariama Moore, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed suit against Model Cities and Safe Space Shelter, along with unspecified staff members and homeless residents, arising from her experiences at a homeless shelter in Minnesota. Moore alleged that during periods of homelessness beginning in April 2024, she stayed at a shelter operated by the Defendants. While there, she claimed other residents stalked and harassed her on the basis of her race, sex, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. She alleged shelter staff ignored her complaints about this treatment. After she reported the situation to the St. Paul Police Department, she claimed Defendants retaliated by preventing her from staying at the shelter for three days. Moore alleged these actions constituted discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604, citing disparate treatment and retaliation. She also referenced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though the opinion notes it was unclear which specific provisions she intended to invoke.

Pending Motions

Legal Standards Applied

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court evaluates whether the complaint alleges a "facially plausible" claim. The court accepts all alleged facts as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. However, the court is not required to accept purely conclusory allegations — statements of legal conclusions without supporting facts — as sufficient. Because Moore is unrepresented, the court applied a liberal construction standard to her pleadings, also reviewing the original complaint alongside the operative amended complaint.

For FHA disparate-treatment claims, the applicable framework mirrors Title VII employment discrimination law: a plaintiff must allege she was treated less favorably than others because of a protected characteristic (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin). Mere conclusory statements are insufficient.

Grounds for Dismissal

The court identified two independent deficiencies in Moore's complaint:

Deficiency 1: No Facts Linking Adverse Treatment to Protected Status

Moore's allegations of disparate treatment and retaliation were non-specific and conclusory. While she alleged she reported residents' conduct to police and was later barred from the shelter for three days, she alleged no facts connecting the shelter's decision to exclude her to that police report, nor any facts suggesting the exclusion was motivated by her race, religion, sex, or other protected characteristic. She also did not allege facts showing she was treated less favorably than any other specific person based on her protected status.

Deficiency 2: The FHA Does Not Cover Conduct by Fellow Residents

The bulk of Moore's complaint focused on the allegedly discriminatory behavior of other shelter residents. The court held that the FHA does not create a cause of action against fellow residents with whom a plaintiff interacts. Rather, the FHA targets "discriminatory housing practices" — conduct by those who provide housing. The court cited 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). Claims about mistreatment by other residents are not cognizable under the FHA.

Rulings on Each Motion

- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 22): GRANTED. - Moore's Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 31): DENIED. Moore sought to correct Safe Space Shelter's name and add all shelter residents and staff as defendants. The court found the proposed amendment would not cure the legal deficiencies identified above. - Moore's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. Nos. 34, 36): DENIED as moot, because the underlying case was dismissed. - Case Disposition: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, meaning Moore is not barred from filing a new case if she can allege sufficient facts to support a viable claim.