Mitchell v. The City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-02785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Mitchell v. New York for failure to state a claim and denied Mitchell’s request for service as moot.
Seth Mitchell’s complaint was dismissed, and his request for an order of service was denied as moot. The named defendants were not required to respond to the dismissed complaint.
What happened
In Mitchell v. The City of New York, Seth Mitchell claimed that the defendants violated federal civil-rights, disability, and fair-housing laws. The court had previously found that his complaint did not describe facts suggesting discrimination or retaliation based on an impermissible factor.
The court gave Mitchell extra time to amend, but he told the court that he would not file an amended complaint and asked it to order service on the defendants. The court therefore considered his original complaint.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal statute governing publicly funded cases. She denied Mitchell’s request for an order of service as moot and denied his fee-free filing status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Mitchell v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-02785
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 5, 2019
Background
Seth Mitchell sued The City of New York, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Housing Partnership Development Corporation, and several named individuals and unidentified defendants. The opinion states that Mitchell identified possible claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). It also notes that his complaint referred to the Violence Against Women Act, but the court said it was unclear what claim, if any, he intended to bring under that law.
In an earlier order, the court concluded that the action could not proceed under the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, or the FHA because Mitchell had not alleged facts suggesting that any defendant discriminated against or retaliated against him because of an impermissible factor. The court allowed him to amend his complaint. It later granted his request for a 60-day extension of time.
Mitchell’s Filing and the Court’s Analysis
Mitchell then told the court that the defendants refused to communicate with him, that he had not obtained additional evidence, and that he would not file an amended complaint. He asked the court to issue an order requiring service of the lawsuit on the defendants. Because he chose to rely on his original complaint, the court applied the reasons given in its earlier order.
The court held that the claims under the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and the FHA failed to state a claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without paying the filing fee when it fails to state a legally sufficient claim. The court found again that Mitchell’s complaint did not allege facts suggesting discrimination or retaliation based on an impermissible factor.
Ruling
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Mitchell’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court denied his request for an order of service as moot. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mitchell permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The court warned that further complaints found to be duplicative, frivolous, or otherwise lacking merit could lead to an order requiring him to explain why he should not be barred from filing new cases without paying the filing fee unless he first received permission.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.