Dames v. De Blasio

Background

Roslyn Alma Dames appeared without a lawyer and proceeded without prepaying filing fees. She alleged that St. Margaret’s House refused to reinstate her Section 8 voucher and refused to let her return to her former apartment. She stated that she had lived at St. Margaret’s House until 2002, witnessed the September 11 attacks while residing there, developed post-traumatic stress disorder, and believed her apartment was contaminated. She alleged that she signed vacancy papers under pressure after failing to treat her post-traumatic stress disorder and lost the apartment. The opinion noted that her allegations gave different dates for when she lived there.

Dames named Bill de Blasio, Dean Santa, St. Margaret’s House, Trinity Church Wall Street, and St. Paul’s Church as defendants. She attached letters to the World Trade Health Program, Mayor de Blasio, and Dean Santa, as well as letters from a doctor and licensed social worker concerning the inadequacy of her current shelter.

Claims and Analysis

The court treated Dames’s constitutional-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits claims against a person who, while acting under state authority, violates rights secured by federal law or the Constitution.

The court dismissed the claims against Mayor de Blasio because Dames did not allege facts showing his direct and personal involvement in the events. A government official cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because the official supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated a person’s rights.

The court also dismissed the claims against St. Margaret’s House, Trinity Church Wall Street, and St. Paul’s Church. It concluded that these defendants were not “persons” who could be sued under § 1983 on the allegations presented. It additionally found that Dames did not clearly explain what those defendants did that violated her rights.

The court understood Dames to seek reinstatement of Section 8 assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 and to challenge the refusal to let her return to her apartment. It stated that the Constitution does not create a right to housing benefits or housing of a particular quality. It also concluded that the Housing Act did not provide a private cause of action against a private landlord for alleged Section 8 noncompliance. The court noted that people already receiving housing benefits may have a protected property interest in continuing to receive them and referred to possible review under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, but it did not grant relief on that basis.

The court construed Dames’s allegations as also asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits specified housing discrimination, including discrimination based on disability, and retaliation for exercising rights protected by that law. The court held that even reading her allegations liberally, she did not provide facts suggesting that any defendant discriminated or retaliated against her because of her disability.

The court further stated that the Fair Housing Act claims appeared untimely. The statute generally requires a civil action to be filed within two years after the alleged discriminatory practice occurred or ended. The court observed that Dames knew or should have known of the alleged violations when she moved out in 2002, while the complaint was received in 2020. It found no facts supporting equitable tolling, an uncommon extension of a filing deadline to prevent unfairness. Because it was not clear that amendment on the timing issue would be futile, the court allowed Dames to explain why equitable tolling might apply.

Disposition

The court dismissed Dames’s complaint, filed without prepaying fees, for failure to state a claim for relief under the screening statute governing such complaints. The court granted her 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to state facts supporting a Fair Housing Act claim, identify the defendants involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, and explain why the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that Dames could not rename any defendant dismissed by the order. If she did not amend within the permitted period or show good cause, the court stated that it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and terminate the matter.