Sexton v. Department of Homeless Services

Background

Charles H.M.S. Sexton, I, proceeding without a lawyer, brought discrimination-related claims against numerous public and private entities and individuals associated with those entities. Volunteers of America, Common Ground Management Corp. doing business as Breaking Ground, and Project Renewal, Inc. moved under Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c), and/or 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the action, or alternatively under Rule 21 to be dropped as parties.

Magistrate Judge Stein issued a Report and Recommendation on July 30, 2026. The Report recommended granting the organizations’ motions under Rule 12(c), which permits judgment based on the pleadings, and alternatively under Rule 21, which permits the court to remove improperly joined parties. The deadline for objections was August 13, 2026. No party filed an objection or requested an extension.

Court’s Analysis

Because no timely objection was filed, the district court reviewed the Report for clear error on the face of the record. The court stated that it found no error, clear or otherwise.

The court adopted the Report’s conclusions that Sexton failed to state discrimination claims under either the FSA or Section 1981, and failed to state a retaliation claim under Section 1981. The court also adopted the conclusion that, even if Sexton had adequately stated claims under the FSA or Section 1981, the three organizations were improperly joined because they had no relation to the shelters or alleged wrongdoing described in the complaint.

Ruling and Case Status

The court ordered that the Report and Recommendation be adopted in full. The organizations’ motions therefore were granted under Rule 12(c), with Rule 21 identified as an alternative basis in the Report adopted by the court.

The court allowed Sexton to amend his complaint by September 18, 2026. Any amended complaint may not include Section 1983 claims, which the court had dismissed in an earlier order, although Sexton previously had been given an opportunity to replead those claims and did not do so. The court also stated that Sexton could not amend his opposition briefing concerning the motions decided in this Order and that amended complaints filed after the deadline would not be considered. If Sexton files an amended complaint and the defendants move to dismiss it, they may file one motion and one consolidated supporting memorandum.