Weaver v. The New York City Housing Authority

Background

Fight for NYCHA and George Weaver, Vera Naseva, Luz Concepción, and Luis Flores filed an amended complaint against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Gregory Russ, the City of New York, Bill De Blasio, Gale Brewer, and Brian Lewis. The plaintiffs proceeded without lawyers and sought to represent themselves and others similarly situated as a class. They alleged violations of the United States Housing Act, 24 C.F.R. § 5.703, federal constitutional rights, and state law.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants were pursuing or considering changes to public housing, including demolition, privatization, rezoning, development, and the sale of air rights. They challenged meetings of the Mayor’s NYCHA Working Group as secret and undemocratic, alleged that some plaintiffs were excluded from meetings and denied membership, and claimed that defendants were attempting to avoid the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. They requested injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as other relief concerning public-housing assets and heating-system upgrades.

The court had previously directed certain plaintiffs to submit separate applications to proceed without paying filing fees or, alternatively, to pay the required fees. The court granted the applications filed by Flores, Weaver, Naseva, and Concepción. Halasa was not listed as a plaintiff in the amended complaint, and the court treated any claims she had previously asserted personally as abandoned.

Screening standard

Because the plaintiffs proceeded without paying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint, or part of one, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

Fight for NYCHA and claims on behalf of others

The court dismissed Fight for NYCHA’s claims without prejudice. It held that an association or other artificial entity cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer, and none of the current individual plaintiffs or Halasa claimed to be an attorney.

The court also denied the remaining plaintiffs’ requests to assert claims for other people, including their request to proceed as a class action. Under federal law, a person may represent themselves or be represented by a lawyer, but a person without a lawyer may not represent other people. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice the claims the remaining plaintiffs asserted on behalf of others.

Federal claims

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The court addressed three groups of federal claims.

First, the court dismissed the § 1983 claims based on the United States Housing Act and 24 C.F.R. § 5.703 for failure to state a claim. It relied on decisions holding that the provisions cited by the plaintiffs do not create a federal right enforceable through § 1983.

Second, the court dismissed the procedural due-process claims based on defendants’ alleged effort to avoid the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. A procedural-due-process claim requires a protected liberty or property interest and a determination of what process is due before that interest is taken. The court held that the plaintiffs had no protected liberty interest in having the procedures established by the New York City Charter, including the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, carried out. The court therefore dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim.

Third, the court dismissed the First Amendment claims based on the plaintiffs’ exclusion from, and inability to participate in, Working Group meetings. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that members of the public generally have no constitutional right to require government decision-making bodies to hear their views, to be appointed to government committees, or to participate in those committees. The court dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims in the complaint. The court also declined to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to amend because it found that the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured by further amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed Fight for NYCHA’s claims without prejudice; denied the remaining plaintiffs’ requests to represent others, including their request to proceed as a class action; and dismissed without prejudice the claims asserted on behalf of others. It dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ own § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, declined to consider any state-law claims, and denied as moot any pending requests for immediate injunctive relief. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.