Dawes v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Durven Carl Dawes proceeded without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court read his complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation violating the First Amendment, as well as claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and New York City and New York State human-rights laws.

According to the complaint, Dawes lived in New York City Housing Authority housing. He alleged that, in October 2018, NYCHA employees Ms. Jone, Karen Moye, Diana Fong, Yelena Kogan, Phillip Lorranine, and an unidentified repairs worker acted together to cut power to his apartment for three days. He alleged that they knew he had asthma and used an electric asthma pump and other medication requiring electricity. He also alleged that, on an unspecified date, Karen Moye and two unidentified people entered his apartment, knocked his cellphone from his hand, and assaulted, threatened, and harassed him. He attributed these actions to complaints he made to 311 and other agencies about mold, peeling paint, and other unhealthy conditions.

Court’s analysis

Because Dawes was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under the statute governing such cases. That review requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally.

The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing the personal involvement of Hector Ramos, Paul Sebastian, Mr. Uwn, Anita Lal, Kimberly Taylor, Monique McLeod, John Resi, Lynette Hill, Mohammed Zubair, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Barnette. A claim under § 1983 generally requires facts connecting each defendant personally to the alleged constitutional violation; a person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. Because Dawes was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him an opportunity to correct this problem rather than immediately dismissing those claims.

Orders

The court directed the Clerk to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the necessary papers to serve NYCHA, Karen Moye, Diana Fong, Phillip Lorranine, and Yelena Kogan. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. Dawes was directed to notify the court in writing if his address changes.

The court granted Dawes 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the defendants involved, provide facts about what each defendant did or failed to do, and state the relevant dates, locations, injuries, legal-rights violations, and requested relief. It will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. If Dawes does not timely amend, the court stated that it will dismiss the claims against the eleven defendants for failure to state a claim.

Judge John G. Koeltl’s order did not decide whether Dawes ultimately proved retaliation, disability discrimination, housing discrimination, or any other underlying claim. It ordered service on five defendants and granted leave to amend as to the eleven defendants whose personal involvement was not adequately alleged.