Jones v. Thomas

Background

Brandon C. Jones filed an amended complaint while representing himself. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged violations involving the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 3617 of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The defendants were Volunteers of America Corporation, Volunteers of America Schwartz Shelter, a Volunteers of America facility at 135 W. 50th Street in New York City, and employees Jisin H. Thomas and Jonathan Tauarez.

Jones alleged that Thomas and Tauarez failed to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliated against him, intimidated him, and filed or caused complaints and an infraction to be made against him after he complained about safety and hygiene issues at the shelter. He also alleged infections, pain, suffering, emotional intimidation, and interference with medical-supply deliveries. He sought money damages and injunctive relief.

Court’s Analysis

Because Jones had been allowed to proceed without paying 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, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. It also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Section 1983 claims. The court treated Jones’s retaliation allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of First Amendment rights. A § 1983 claim requires a violation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under state law. The court held that Jones did not state such a claim because Volunteers of America was a private nonprofit organization, and Thomas and Tauarez were private individuals who did not work for a state or other government body. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against Thomas, Tauarez, Volunteers of America Corporation, Volunteers of America Schwartz Shelter, and Volunteers of America at 135 W. 50th Street.

ADA claims. The court explained that Title III of the ADA covers places of public accommodation and that the statutory definition includes a homeless shelter or other social-service center. To state a reasonable-accommodation claim, Jones needed to allege facts showing that he had a disability, that the defendant knew about it, that an accommodation was necessary, and that the defendant refused it. The court found that Jones had not alleged facts describing a qualifying disability, the accommodation he sought, or discrimination connected to denial of that accommodation. The court granted him leave to amend to provide facts supporting a Title III ADA claim.

Fair Housing Act claims. Jones relied on 42 U.S.C. § 3617, which prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with a person’s exercise of rights protected by the FHA. The court found that Jones had not alleged facts showing that he had a disability under the FHA, had exercised or enjoyed a right under the FHA, or had been intimidated or retaliated against because he exercised such a right. The court said that his allegation that Thomas filed a formal complaint after Jones complained about shelter safety and hygiene did not, as pleaded, establish an FHA violation. The court instructed Jones to include supporting facts if he amended the complaint.

Title VII claims. The court dismissed the Title VII claims for failure to state a claim because Jones did not allege that he was or had been an employee of any defendant.

Disposition

The court granted Jones’s motion for permission for electronic case filing. It dismissed the § 1983 claims, dismissed the Title VII claims, and granted Jones leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days that complied with the court’s instructions. The new complaint had to state the relevant facts, identify what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, describe the injuries and requested relief, and include any claims Jones wished to pursue because the second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that failure to file within the allowed period, absent good cause, would lead to dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.