Flores v. Department of Homeless Services

Background

Constance Flores proceeded without a lawyer and lived in a transitional housing facility operated by Casa de Carino. She alleged that the Department of Homeless Services required transitional housing facilities to enforce an 11 p.m. curfew, require residents to sleep at the facility unless staff granted an overnight pass, and direct part of residents’ public assistance toward shelter costs. She said she was denied overnight or late passes for family visits, a family reunion, work, and family emergencies.

Flores also alleged that her cash assistance fell from $91.50 every two weeks before entering transitional housing to $11 per week afterward. She challenged the reduction as a constitutional violation and described poor conditions at Casa de Carino, including sanitation, heating, air-conditioning, and access problems. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority, as well as state-law claims.

Federal Claims Against NAICA and Casa de Carino

The court dismissed Flores’s § 1983 claims against the Neighborhood Association of Inter-Cultural Affairs and Casa de Carino for failure to state a claim. A private organization is generally not liable under § 1983 unless the challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the government. The court concluded that these nonprofit entities were private organizations and were not acting as government entities merely by providing transitional housing to Flores.

Federal Claims Against DHS

The court also dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services because, under the New York City Charter, the Department lacks the legal capacity to be sued in its own name.

The court further explained that, even if Flores’s claims were treated as claims against New York City, they were not adequately pleaded. A municipal § 1983 claim requires allegations that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation.

Regarding the curfew, the court held that Flores had not shown that the overnight-pass policy violated a protected right to family integrity. She was free to leave transitional housing and return to live with family, although the court recognized that she might have felt she had no good alternatives. The court also rejected her claim that the curfew amounted to unlawful detention or false imprisonment because she voluntarily entered the facility, could leave, and had not alleged involuntary confinement without consent. The court additionally stated that arbitrary decisions about overnight passes would not create a constitutional claim without a protected liberty or property interest in receiving such a pass.

Regarding the reduction in public assistance, the court stated that any claim that the benefits were improperly calculated under state or local law would first require administrative review and potentially a state-court proceeding under Article 78. The court also held that Flores had not shown a constitutionally protected property interest in retaining the shelter portion of her benefits while living in transitional housing because, according to the opinion, state law did not give her an entitlement to that amount in those circumstances.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over Flores’s claims for harassment, breach of contract, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and other alleged torts. Those state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court granted Flores 30 days to file an amended complaint that explains her claims and attempts to correct the identified defects. If she does not file an amended complaint within that period, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment. Judge Stanton also directed the clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.