Dames v. De Blasio

Background

Roslyn Alma Dames filed the case without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. Her original complaint raised allegations concerning Mayor Bill De Blasio, Dean Santa, St. Margaret’s House, Trinity Church Wall Street, and St. Paul Church. In an earlier order, the court treated her allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, dismissed several defendants and claims, and allowed her to file an amended complaint asserting a possible Fair Housing Act claim based on disability discrimination or retaliation. The court also directed her to address whether her claims were timely.

Dames filed an amended complaint naming the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, Claire Guerrette, and Dean Santa. She repeated many of her earlier allegations, alleged that she had a disability, and again sought restoration of her Section 8 benefits.

Fair Housing Act claim

The court dismissed the remaining Fair Housing Act claim for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that Dames did not allege facts suggesting that any defendant discriminated against her or retaliated against her because of her disability. The court therefore found that merely alleging a disability was insufficient to state the claim.

The court also stated that, even if Dames had stated a Fair Housing Act claim, it would be time-barred. Dames alleged that she had post-traumatic stress disorder and argued that the deadline should be extended because she had been temporarily incapacitated. The court found that she had not shown a basis for extending the statute of limitations and said that the information before it indicated she was able to function in society during the relevant period.

Section 8 benefits

The court addressed Dames’s renewed request to have her Section 8 benefits reinstated. It held that it lacked mandamus jurisdiction—the authority to compel the requested action—to order the defendants to reinstate those benefits. The court explained that federal courts have no general power to compel action by state officials. It stated that Dames could seek review of the termination decision in a New York state-court Article 78 proceeding and noted that state-law hearing and review procedures had been found constitutionally adequate for challenging adverse government-benefit decisions.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk of Court to send the order to Dames and record service on the docket. The order dismissed Dames’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also denied her request for injunctive relief as moot. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.