Toliver v. The City of New York

Background

Michel Toliver, appearing without a lawyer, brought this federal-question action after staying at housing provided by Project Renewal. He alleged that his property was unlawfully searched and not returned, that threats followed his police report, and that he was transferred between facilities in retaliation for filing a police report and grievances. He also alleged that Project Renewal withheld or refused to provide medication prescribed for seizures and pain, and that a staff member used a derogatory label referring to his membership in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.

Toliver asserted claims involving the Fourth Amendment, retaliation, sexual-orientation discrimination, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. He named the City of New York; the Department of Homeless Services; Project Renewal Fort Washington; Project Renewal Ana’s Place; Mr. Mendoza; Ms. Graham; John/Jane Doe; Judy Malloy; and Dr. Radulovick. He sought $3 million in damages. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Court’s analysis

Because Toliver was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts interpret complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, those complaints must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must comply with the requirement of a short and plain statement.

Department of Homeless Services

The court dismissed Toliver’s claims against the Department of Homeless Services because it is an agency of the City of New York and cannot be sued in its own name. Claims against that agency must be brought against the City.

City of New York and Mr. Mendoza

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—the federal civil-rights statute used to sue state or local officials for certain rights violations—Toliver had to allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the violation. The court found that he did not identify any such City policy, custom, or practice.

Toliver also sued Mr. Mendoza, a senior Department of Homeless Services administrator. The court said that an official-capacity claim against him would effectively be a claim against the City. For an individual-capacity claim, Toliver had to allege facts showing what Mr. Mendoza personally did or failed to do. The complaint alleged only that Mr. Mendoza placed Toliver in another Project Renewal facility after threats followed the police report. The court stated that Toliver had no constitutional right to housing in a particular facility and that these allegations did not state a claim against Mr. Mendoza.

Project Renewal and its employees

Section 1983 generally applies only to defendants acting under state law. The court determined that Project Renewal appeared to be a private nonprofit organization and found that Toliver did not allege facts showing that it performed a government-only function, used government coercive power, acted jointly with the government, or otherwise acted in a way fairly attributable to the state. The court therefore concluded that the alleged searches, medication restrictions, and retaliation did not state constitutional claims under § 1983 against Project Renewal or its employees.

Discrimination claim

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in covered public accommodations based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Because Toliver alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, the court found that his allegations did not state a claim under Title II. The court noted that New York law covers additional categories of discrimination, but it did not decide a state-law claim in this order.

Health-information claim

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act generally protects the confidentiality of individually identifiable health information, but the court stated that it does not provide an individual with a private right to sue. The court also found that Toliver had not alleged facts describing what happened. It therefore concluded that he could not state a claim under that law.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court dismissed Toliver’s claims against the Department of Homeless Services. It granted him leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days. He was not permitted to reassert claims under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or Title II of the Civil Rights Act, or claims against the Department of Homeless Services.

The amended complaint had to identify the individuals involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, explain the injuries, and state the requested relief. The court allowed Toliver to use John Doe or Jane Doe descriptions if he did not know a defendant’s name, but warned that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. No summons would issue at that time. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon warned that if Toliver did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.