Hobbs v. Lasco

Background

Richard P. Hobbs, appearing without a lawyer, filed a handwritten, one-page complaint about conditions in an apartment in Yonkers where he had lived for nine years. He alleged that the apartment had no heat during winter, that he spent thousands of dollars using a space heater, and that he was hospitalized for two months after being in the freezing apartment. He also alleged problems with the kitchen sink and rotting walls, and said that he had at one point been unable to live in the apartment and stayed in a nursing home.

Hobbs named Patrick Lasco, Sr., identified as a Yonkers building inspector; Yonkers City Court Judge Inlaw; the Westchester County District Attorney; the New York State regional office of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; an unidentified Westchester County government employee who decides whether a litigant may proceed without paying fees; and the Yonkers Section 8 portion of the Yonkers Housing Authority, identified in the caption as “Macy.” Hobbs alleged that Lasco acted improperly and eventually moved to evict him, and that Judge Inlaw refused his request to subpoena witnesses in the eviction proceeding. The complaint did not identify a specific legal cause of action.

Legal standard

Because Hobbs had been permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also had to dismiss if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

The court said that pleadings filed without a lawyer receive a liberal reading, but still must provide enough factual detail to make a legally plausible claim and must give a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Rooker-Feldman discussion

The court said it appeared that state-court proceedings had occurred concerning Hobbs’s eviction and apartment conditions. To the extent Hobbs was asking the federal court to overturn the result of those proceedings, the claims were likely barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing final judgments issued by state courts.

The court did not decide that the doctrine definitely applied. It said it was unclear whether the required circumstances were present and granted Hobbs leave to replead his claims.

Claims construed under Section 1983

The court read the complaint as attempting to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by people acting under state law. A Section 1983 claim requires facts showing both a violation of a federal right and the defendant’s personal involvement.

The court found that Hobbs did not adequately explain what Lasco did or why Lasco, as a building inspector, would have been involved in the eviction. Even assuming Lasco was involved, the complaint did not suggest that Lasco violated Hobbs’s federally protected rights. The complaint gave no meaningful information about the unidentified Westchester County employee, “Macy” in the Yonkers Housing Authority, or the Westchester County District Attorney, including what they did or why Hobbs was suing them. The court dismissed the claims against those defendants but allowed Hobbs to amend and add supporting facts.

Claim against Judge Inlaw

The court held that judges generally have absolute immunity from damages claims based on actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. It found no facts suggesting that Judge Inlaw acted outside the judge’s authority. The court therefore dismissed Hobbs’s claim against Judge Inlaw. The court also discussed limits on judicial immunity but found no facts indicating that any exception applied.

Claims concerning HUD

The court explained that sovereign immunity generally prevents lawsuits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver for certain injuries caused by federal employees, but requires a claimant to first submit an administrative claim and receive a final written decision.

The court found no indication that Hobbs had completed that administrative process. It therefore dismissed any Federal Tort Claims Act claims against HUD as barred by sovereign immunity. The court added that the complaint did not otherwise contain facts supporting a claim against HUD.

Disposition

The court dismissed Hobbs’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. It granted Hobbs 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies. The order instructed him to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the order’s date, identify it as an “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-511 (CM). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Hobbs did not file an amended complaint, it would enter judgment and close the case.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hobbs permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. It warned that, in light of his litigation history and multiple complaints filed on the same day, he could be required to explain why he should not be barred from filing new fee-free cases without prior permission if he abused that privilege.