Harris v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development

Background

Ronald W. Harris, Sr., appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2041. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Harris had another pending disability-discrimination action concerning an alleged failure by his landlord to provide his preferred parking space. In this case, he alleged that employees of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development met at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan in 2015 concerning discrimination claims raised in that other action. He alleged that pressure from the employees caused him to suffer a heart attack in January 2018. He sued the Department and James Sandiago, Joeann Fry, and Jay Goldeng, seeking damages and asking the court to find them guilty.

Court’s analysis

Because Harris was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while still requiring compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Federal criminal-statute claims

The court held that a private citizen cannot prosecute a federal criminal action or require prosecutors to bring criminal charges against another person. It therefore dismissed with prejudice Harris’s claims seeking to prosecute federal criminal charges and directed him not to repeat those claims in an amended complaint.

Failure to state specific facts

The court found that Harris’s allegations about a meeting concerning his discrimination claims did not state a claim for violating his rights. The complaint did not provide facts explaining what any defendant did or failed to do that violated Harris’s rights. The court therefore found that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8. A footnote stated that, if the claims arose in 2015, they might also be time-barred, depending on the statute involved.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Harris leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include all facts and claims Harris wished to pursue. The court directed him, to the greatest extent possible, to identify the relevant people and their titles; describe what each defendant did or failed to do; provide dates, times, and locations; explain how the conduct violated his rights and injured him; and state the relief he sought. He also had to provide addresses for named defendants. No summons would issue at that time.

The order did not decide the merits of Harris’s remaining Fair Housing Act or Americans with Disabilities Act claims. It stated that if Harris failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed time, and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Louis L. Stanton also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Harris and record service on the docket.