Shieh v. N.Y.C.H.A.

Background

Wen-Hwa Shieh filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. In an earlier order, the court had allowed him to amend his complaint to allege facts showing that a New York City Housing Authority policy, custom, or practice violated his federally protected rights, and facts showing Wendy Prince’s personal involvement in such violations.

Shieh’s amended complaint named R. Rodriguez as the sole defendant. The complaint appeared to allege that Rodriguez was the manager of the Housing Authority apartment building where Shieh lived. It also made allegations about Housing Authority officials, including that the apartment conditions were poor, officials tried to inspect the apartment and evict him, officials discriminated against him, relevant documents were not translated into his language, and documents bearing his signature were forged. Shieh sought damages and injunctive relief.

Shieh attached Housing Authority documents concerning charges that he had violated tenant rules and a notice stating that a hearing could result in eviction. The opinion says that Shieh did not state whether he attended the hearing or what determination, if any, was made. Shieh also requested an injunction against alleged harassment by Housing Authority staff and appeared to ask the court to transfer a discrimination complaint from the New York State Division of Human Rights to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the amended complaint as again attempting to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. Because Shieh did not name the Housing Authority or Prince as defendants, the court deemed his claims against them abandoned.

The court held that Shieh alleged no facts showing Rodriguez’s personal involvement in violating his federally protected rights. The court further held that, even if the amended complaint were understood to assert Section 1983 claims against the Housing Authority, it alleged insufficient facts to show that a Housing Authority policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of those rights. The court therefore concluded that Shieh failed to state a claim for relief.

Because Shieh alleged discrimination based on race, disability, and national origin, the court granted him leave to file a second amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act. The opinion explains that such a claim requires facts showing discriminatory action and that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court denied Shieh’s request for an injunction as moot. The court granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. It stated that, if Shieh did not file a compliant second amended complaint within that period, the court would enter judgment dismissing the action for failure to state a claim.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.