Tasfay v. Ramos

Background

Jama Tasfay and Desmond Rolle, proceeding without lawyers, sued Melissa Ramos, the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and Acacia under federal-question jurisdiction. They had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. They described events on May 31, 2019, at 416 East 138th Street in the Bronx, which appeared to be a shelter.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants took part in a discriminatory action against their family; sent seven DHS police officers to remove them without a reason or 48 hours’ notice; entered the apartment and packed their belongings; and that Sergeant Nadia DiSalvo slapped Tasfay’s hand to stop the recording. They alleged a scratch and redness on the hand. They also alleged that Ramos described them as “easily agitated and volatile” and falsely said that Rolle had left threatening voicemails. The plaintiffs suggested that Ramos made those statements and acted against them because of their race. They did not specify the relief they sought.

Claims and analysis

The court interpreted the complaint as raising claims under the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Fair Housing Act prohibits specified forms of housing discrimination and retaliation. A § 1983 claim requires facts showing that a person acting under state law violated a constitutional or federal statutory right, and an individual defendant must have been personally involved.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not allege enough facts showing that Ramos violated the Fair Housing Act or their constitutional rights. Their allegation that Ramos must have acted because of race merely because she had not previously met them did not support that inference. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend with additional facts. The court also noted that Ramos’s alleged false statements might support a state-law defamation claim, but not a constitutional claim under § 1983.

As to Acacia, the plaintiffs did not identify what or who Acacia was, allege what Acacia did, or explain why it was named as a defendant. The court found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that Acacia violated the Fair Housing Act or constitutional rights, or that Acacia was a state actor subject to § 1983 liability. The court instructed the plaintiffs to provide supporting facts if they wished to pursue claims against Acacia.

The court dismissed the claims against DHS because city agencies such as DHS are not entities that can be sued. The court said the plaintiffs might instead intend to sue the City of New York. To state a § 1983 claim against the City, they would need facts showing a city policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that the complaint did not provide such facts and granted leave to add them.

The plaintiffs had not named Sergeant Nadia DiSalvo as a defendant, although they alleged that she violated Tasfay’s First Amendment right to record police officers. The court could not determine from the complaint whether DiSalvo was a state actor because it did not explain who she was; she appeared to be a security officer for DHS or the shelter. The court also stated that, even assuming a First Amendment right to record police activity, it was unclear whether that right applied in the circumstances alleged. The plaintiffs could pursue this claim only by naming DiSalvo and providing available supporting facts.

Supplemental jurisdiction

The court postponed deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. It explained that federal courts may decline such jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed, but it was not yet clear whether the plaintiffs could state any federal claims.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the relevant defendants, events, dates, locations, alleged violations, injuries, and requested relief. The plaintiffs were directed to label it “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 20-CV-5472 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if they did not comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order was signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton.