Davis v. Port Jervis Community Development

Background

Daryl J. Davis, representing himself, brought an action alleging that Port Jervis Community Development discriminated against him by terminating his status as a Section 8 tenant. The opinion states that Davis resides in Port Jervis, New York, and received a termination notice dated April 17, 2019. He also alleged that the defendant’s actions caused defamation of his integrity and character and stress. He sought unspecified relief. Davis had previously been allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance.

Screening standard

Because Davis was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, a complaint must still provide a short and plain statement with enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Federal housing and civil-rights claims

The court construed Davis’s claims for damages based on constitutional rights or federal statutes as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under that statute requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court explained that the Constitution does not create a general right to housing benefits. It also stated that the Housing Act of 1937 does not provide a private cause of action allowing a Section 8 certificate holder to sue a private landlord for violating Section 8. Thus, if Davis sought damages based on constitutional rights or noncompliance with federal housing statutes, the court said he could not state a federal claim on the allegations presented. The court noted that a person already receiving housing benefits may have a protected property interest requiring minimal due process before benefits are terminated, but the opinion did not find that Davis had adequately pleaded such a claim.

The court stated that Davis could seek judicial review of the termination decision or failure to act under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Fair Housing Act claim

Because Davis alleged discrimination, the court considered whether his allegations could support a claim under the Fair Housing Act. The Act prohibits housing discrimination based on listed factors, including race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability, and also prohibits retaliation against people who assert rights protected by the Act.

The court held that Davis had not alleged facts suggesting that Port Jervis Community Development discriminated or retaliated against him based on any of those factors. Because Davis was representing himself, however, the court allowed him to amend the complaint to allege facts supporting a Fair Housing Act claim.

State-law claim

Davis alleged that the defendant defamed his integrity and character. The court characterized defamation as a state-law claim. It explained that a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, but because it was not yet clear whether Davis could state a federal claim, the court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Davis leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to include the facts and claims Davis wished to pursue. The court directed him to identify relevant people and titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain the alleged injuries and rights violations, state the relief requested, and provide addresses for named defendants. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if Davis did not comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.