Ghouneim v. New York City Department of Homeless Services

Background

Debbie Ghouneim, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS). The court understood her complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local government actors. Ghouneim alleged that she lived in an unspecified homeless shelter or shelters, complained about unsafe conditions and religion-based discrimination, was denied housing, and was harassed and assaulted. She also alleged that shelter staff and DHS police officers failed to assist her and favored certain groups. She sought $100,000 for pain and suffering and denial of housing, as well as reasonable accommodations to avoid threats.

Earlier related proceeding

Ghouneim had previously filed an action involving DHS and the African American Planning Commission, Inc. The court dismissed her § 1983 claims in that earlier round for failure to state a claim. It held that DHS was not a suable entity and that the City of New York did not have a constitutional duty to protect her from disease or provide for her needs in a homeless shelter because the City had not restrained her ability to act on her own behalf or required her to remain in a shelter against her will. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later dismissed her appeal as frivolous.

Claim preclusion

The court considered claim preclusion, also called res judicata. This doctrine can prevent a party from bringing claims that were already decided, or that could have been brought, in an earlier case involving the same opposing party or a legally connected party. The court explained that a dismissal for failure to state a claim operates as a final judgment for this purpose.

The court found that the present complaint might involve claims that Ghouneim previously raised or could have raised in the earlier related proceeding. Both cases involved allegations concerning officials’ failure to protect her from disease and unsafe conditions and their failure to provide housing. But the court could not determine whether the present complaint described different events or different reasons for the same events because Ghouneim did not provide specific dates and locations. The court therefore did not decide whether claim preclusion barred the present claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon granted Ghouneim leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include all facts and claims she wishes to maintain. The court directed her, to the greatest extent possible, to identify relevant people and their titles and addresses; describe what each defendant did or failed to do; provide dates, times, and locations; explain how the conduct violated her federally protected rights; describe her injuries; and state the relief requested.

The amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-4862 (CM). The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. It further stated that if Ghouneim failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the action would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.