Ash v. City of N.Y.

Background

Damon Ash alleged that he rented an apartment from the United Jewish Council and that Betty Jacobson and Laura Porschar, whom he alleged were employed by that organization, mistreated him from 2011 through 2016. His allegations included racial epithets, interference with his religious practices, and statements that he said spread through his building and the Lower East Side. The court treated his fifth amended complaint as asserting religious-discrimination and defamation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and a housing-discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act.

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). On that type of motion, the court applies the same standard used for deciding whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Because Ash was representing himself, the court read his allegations liberally and also considered consistent allegations in his opposition papers.

Section 1983 Claims

The court granted the motion as to Ash’s claims under § 1983. To proceed under that statute, Ash had to plausibly allege both a violation of a federal right and action taken under color of state law—meaning action fairly attributable to a state or local government.

The court found that Ash alleged only that Jacobson and Porschar worked for the United Jewish Council. He did not allege facts supporting a plausible inference that the organization was affiliated with New York City or New York State. The court also found that he did not plausibly allege a conspiracy between the defendants and state actors. The defendants therefore were entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the § 1983 claims.

Fair Housing Act Claim

The court construed Ash’s allegations as raising a Fair Housing Act claim concerning discrimination in his enjoyment of his residence. The court ruled that the claim was time barred. Even assuming the alleged discrimination continued through July 2016, the latest the two-year filing period could have begun was July 31, 2016. Ash did not name Jacobson and Porschar as defendants until December 21, 2018.

The court rejected Ash’s argument that the claim should relate back to his original complaint. It explained that adding defendants does not relate back when they were not originally named because the plaintiff did not know their identities. The court also stated that its earlier rejection of equitable tolling applied to the Fair Housing Act claim.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Ash’s New York defamation claim and any other state-law claims that could be read into his complaint. The court had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal-question jurisdiction, and it concluded that the relevant considerations supported declining jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

The court granted the remaining defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Woods denied Ash leave to replead, noting that he had amended his complaint five times and had had ample opportunity to state a plausible claim. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, terminate the pending motions, and close the case.