Arias v. HPD
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04171
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Justo Arias v. HPD, Judge Stanton dismissed the complaint because HPD cannot be sued and the allegations were insufficient, allowing 30 days to amend.
Justo Arias, who may file an amended complaint within 30 days; HPD was dismissed as a defendant because the court found that a New York City agency cannot generally be sued.
What happened
In Justo Arias v. HPD, Justo Arias, representing himself, alleged that his landlord used his name to register tenants without permission. He sued “HPD,” which the court understood to mean New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, but he did not identify the landlord or explain what happened in enough detail.
The court dismissed the complaint because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued and because the complaint did not provide enough facts to state a claim. It also declined to consider any state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. The court gave Arias 30 days to file an amended complaint naming a defendant personally involved in the alleged violation and explaining his claims.
Judge Louis L. Stanton issued the order. The case remains open while Arias has the opportunity to amend; if he does not do so within the allowed time, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Arias v. HPD · No. 1:25-cv-04171
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
Justo Arias proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and sued “HPD,” which the court understood to be the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. His complaint stated: “The reason for this complaint is because the landlord has been using my name to register his tenants without my authorization.” He did not identify the landlord, provide details about how or when the alleged conduct occurred, state why it violated his rights, or specify the relief he sought.
Why the Court Dismissed the Complaint
The court explained that a New York City agency generally is not an entity that can be sued. It therefore dismissed the claims against HPD. The court declined to treat the complaint as a claim against the City of New York. It explained that a claim under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, requires facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of constitutional rights. Arias alleged no such policy, custom, or practice, so he did not state a viable Section 1983 claim against the City.
The court also ruled that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. The single-sentence allegation did not explain how, where, when, or why the landlord allegedly used Arias’s name, and it did not identify the landlord. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
State-Law Claims
Because the court dismissed the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Arias might be asserting.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint filed without prepayment of fees, with 30 days’ leave to replead. It granted Arias permission to file an amended complaint that names a defendant personally involved in violating his rights, provides sufficient factual detail, and alleges facts supporting any municipal claim. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered. If Arias does not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.