Ong v. Town of Walkill Building Dept. & Personnel

Background

Bienvenido P. Ong proceeded without a lawyer and sought to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which addresses certain conspiracies to deprive people of equal protection or equal privileges. His claims arose from his eviction from a residence in Middletown, New York.

Ong alleged that the defendants “locked up & seized all belo[n]ging and change[d]” his door lock before a warrant was issued. He also referred to legal proceedings that he said were brought without probable cause and ended favorably. Documents attached to his filing showed that Senior Horizons, identified as his landlord, began an eviction proceeding and that a July 11, 2022 final judgment directed the Orange County Sheriff to evict him.

Rulings on the claims

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Senior Horizons for failure to state a claim. Section 1983 generally requires action under color of state law. The court found that Senior Horizons was a private party and that Ong had not alleged that it worked for a state or governmental body. The court also stated that providing housing, without more, does not make a private entity a state actor for purposes of § 1983.

The court treated Ong’s claims against the Wallkill Building Department and the Orange County Sheriff as including malicious-prosecution and due-process claims. It dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim for failure to state a claim because the complaint did not allege that any defendant prosecuted Ong in a criminal proceeding that ended in his favor.

For the due-process claim, the court assumed that Ong had a protected property interest in his rental unit. It nevertheless concluded that New York law provides meaningful remedies when a person is deprived of property through a random and unauthorized act. Those remedies can include seeking relief from the state court overseeing the eviction, including possible restoration to possession. Because the complaint did not show that Ong used that remedy or that it was inadequate, the court dismissed the due-process claim for failure to state a claim.

The court also dismissed the § 1985 conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim. Ong did not allege an agreement among the defendants, describe how any conspiracy began or operated, or plausibly allege that the defendants acted because of racial or class-based discriminatory bias.

Leave to amend and state-law claims

The court granted Ong 30 days to replead, meaning to file an amended complaint that provides additional facts and attempts to correct the deficiencies. If he did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court stated that the clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

Because the court dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Ong might be asserting. The court directed the clerk to hold the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.