Syville v. City of New York

Background

Alphonso Syville, appearing without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and Iris Rodriguez under federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that he had stayed in homeless shelters for about ten years while trying to obtain an apartment through the City’s Department of Homeless Services (DHS). He alleged that obtaining a housing voucher required an open welfare case, physical and psychiatric evaluations, and a tuberculosis shot, and that transfers between shelters required him to restart that process.

Syville alleged that he had repeatedly been transferred between shelters without advance notice. He also alleged that Rodriguez refused to provide him housing in retaliation for his advocacy and complaints about shelter staff. He sought $1 million in damages. He separately referred to shelter conditions, the response to COVID-19, and a prior assignment to a shelter for individuals with mental illness.

Screening standard

Because Syville was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires enough factual detail to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible. The court said it would read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but that the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement of facts supporting relief.

Claims the court dismissed

The court dismissed Syville’s claims about conditions in DHS shelters, including the alleged inadequate response to COVID-19, without prejudice. It did so because Syville was raising the same claims in another pending case. The court directed him not to reassert those claims in this action if he amended his complaint.

The court also dismissed the claims concerning Syville’s assignment to a mental-illness shelter from 2015 through 2017. It ruled that claim preclusion, also called res judicata, barred those claims because Syville had already litigated them in earlier proceedings. The court directed him not to include those claims in an amended complaint.

Retaliation claim

The court treated Syville’s allegations as asserting retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. It explained that such a claim requires facts showing protected speech, a defendant’s action motivated or substantially caused by that speech, and an action that effectively discouraged the person from exercising the right.

The court said Syville’s complaints about shelter staff could potentially be protected speech, even if expressed insultingly. But it found that he had not alleged facts showing a connection between his complaints and the failure to provide him an apartment or single-room-occupancy housing. He also had not alleged facts showing that the defendants’ actions effectively discouraged him from exercising his speech rights. In addition, he did not allege what Rodriguez personally did or failed to do. Because a person generally cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 merely for supervising someone else, the court found that Syville failed to state a claim against Rodriguez.

Procedural due-process claim

The court construed the allegations about unannounced shelter transfers as a possible procedural due-process claim. It explained that due-process protection applies to protected liberty or property interests, including a benefit to which a person has a legitimate entitlement under state law or another independent source.

The court noted that New York law appears to protect families’ right to remain in a family shelter, subject to specified exceptions. But Syville had not identified a state-law right limiting DHS’s discretion to transfer a single adult from one shelter to another. The court therefore found that he had not pleaded a protected property interest in avoiding transfers without notice and failed to state a due-process claim.

Claim against the City

The court explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly committed wrongdoing. A plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation.

The court understood Syville’s complaint as possibly alleging that DHS and the City had a policy requiring people to complete several steps before receiving certain housing and requiring them to repeat those steps after a transfer. But the court found that these allegations did not show a violation of Syville’s constitutional rights because he had no constitutional right to a particular type of housing. The court therefore found that he failed to state a claim against the City of New York.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Syville leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It required the amended complaint to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how the conduct violated his rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court warned that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The order was signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton.