Kellier v. Acosta

Background

Joshua Kellier, appearing without a lawyer, sued NAICA Anthony Acosta, DHS Mrs. Montagna, DHS Mrs. Hyler, NAICA Julius Doe, and Police Officer Cheung of the 5th Precinct. The opinion identifies NAICA as the Neighborhood Association for Inter-Cultural Affairs, Inc., a nonprofit organization serving homeless people, and DHS as the New York City Department of Homeless Services.

Kellier invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that permits claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. He alleged that the defendants discriminated against him, denied him fair and respectful treatment, conspired to deny him shelter, sent him to an undesirable shelter, denied him bedding, damaged his laptop, limited his access to a caseworker, and failed to accommodate his vegan diet. He alleged that he was forced to sleep in the subway and on hard surfaces, suffered swelling in his legs, caught lice and the flu, incurred hospital fees, and experienced emotional distress and other harms. He also alleged that Officer Cheung refused to take a criminal complaint.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Kellier had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Section 1983 Claims About Shelter

The court held that the allegations against the DHS defendants did not state a federal constitutional claim. Kellier alleged discrimination but did not identify its basis or facts showing discriminatory intent. The court stated that there is no constitutional right to a well-run shelter system or to housing of a particular quality. It also held that Kellier did not have a federal or New York-law property right to placement in a particular type of shelter, so his allegations about being sent to an undesirable shelter did not establish a due-process claim.

The court further explained that a violation of state law or agency policy, without more, does not itself create liability under § 1983. As to the NAICA defendants, the court said Kellier had to show that their conduct was fairly attributable to the government. The opinion describes several tests for determining when a private entity’s conduct counts as state action, including government coercion or control, joint activity with the government, or performance of a function delegated by the government. The court concluded that Kellier had not alleged facts showing that the NAICA defendants acted under color of state law.

Claim Against Officer Cheung

The court held that Kellier’s allegations against Officer Cheung did not state a viable § 1983 claim. It explained that people generally have no constitutional right to a government investigation or to have police officers investigate their complaints. The court found that the exceptions to that general rule did not apply to the facts alleged.

Jurisdiction

The court found that Kellier had not established diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires a reasonable probability that the amount at issue exceeds $75,000. The court stated that Kellier’s complaint indicated that both he and the defendants reside in New York, which prevented complete diversity. The court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims because it was not yet clear whether Kellier could state a federal claim.

Other Motions and Leave to Amend

The court denied Kellier’s request for an order to show cause, which sought injunctive relief. The request was essentially blank and did not identify specific relief. The court also found that Kellier had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions to justify such relief.

The court denied Kellier’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date because it was too early to assess the merits of the action. The court also denied the request to submit audio-recording evidence.

The court granted Kellier leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It directed him to provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, identify relevant people and their titles and addresses, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how his rights were violated, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and warned that failure to amend within the permitted period, absent good cause, could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.