Wiltz v. New York University

Background

New York University began an eviction proceeding in New York City Housing Court on February 24, 2016, seeking to remove pro se plaintiff Randall Wiltz from a rent-stabilized apartment that he allegedly shared with Martha Dewell, the tenant of record. The eviction dispute led to multiple proceedings in state and federal court.

In this action, filed on April 16, 2019, Wiltz alleged that the defendants violated several federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.

Report and Recommendation and objections

On December 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. He also recommended granting in part a motion by certain defendants for an injunction preventing Wiltz from filing further federal litigation without prior court approval.

Wiltz objected to the recommendation. He argued, among other things, that the recommendation improperly treated New York University as a private entity, failed to account for the apartment’s alleged status as a dormitory, improperly handled the removal of an earlier state-court action, gave insufficient consideration to his factual allegations, and applied the wrong standard to the proposed filing injunction. He also argued that he was entitled to a hearing.

The district court explained that specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation receive fresh review, while general or conclusory objections are reviewed for clear error. The court stated that it reviewed the recommendation de novo despite its conclusion that many of Wiltz’s objections repeated earlier arguments or raised new arguments too late.

Court’s analysis

The court found the recommendation thorough, well reasoned, and correct. It agreed that, even assuming New York University had an agreement with New York City concerning rent-stabilized tenants, that agreement would not make the university a public entity as a matter of law. It also agreed with the recommendation’s conclusion that residential facilities or apartment buildings are not public accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court declined to consider Wiltz’s challenge to removal of the earlier state-court action because that action had been voluntarily discontinued and, in any event, the removal argument had not been raised before the magistrate judge. The court also stated that the liberal treatment generally given to filings by people without lawyers does not suspend ordinary pleading and procedural rules.

Filing injunction

The court upheld the recommended filing restriction under the five-factor test used to determine whether a litigant’s future access to the courts should be limited. The factors concern the litigant’s history of repetitive or harassing lawsuits, motive, representation by counsel, burdens imposed on other parties and the courts, and whether lesser sanctions would be adequate.

The court concluded that the factors supported an injunction. It relied on its finding that Wiltz had filed numerous claims arising from the 2016 eviction proceedings, repeatedly asserted the same claims in slightly altered form, imposed unnecessary costs and burdens, and was unlikely to stop filing frivolous complaints through other sanctions. The court also rejected Wiltz’s argument that he had been denied a hearing, finding that he had notice of the requested injunction and an opportunity to respond.

Disposition

The court accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and granted in part the request for a filing injunction. Before filing another federal action arising out of or related to the apartment or the related state-court and administrative proceedings, Wiltz must request permission from the Clerk of Court and submit the proposed complaint and supporting documents in the required format. The order states that violating the restriction could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, terminate the pending motions, and close the case.