Harris v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development

Background

Ronald W. Harris, Sr., who uses a wheelchair, lived at Huguenot House, where rent was federally subsidized through the Section 8 housing program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Community Housing Management Corporation managed the building. Harris had a separate case against Community Housing concerning a parking space that he alleged did not accommodate his disability.

In this case, Harris alleged that HUD employees met with Community Housing employees without inviting him. He claimed that the meeting concerned his disability-discrimination claims and the placement of a handicapped parking space. He alleged that pressure from HUD employees caused him to suffer a heart attack and sought damages. He also asked the court to find the defendants guilty of federal criminal offenses.

After the court directed Harris to amend his original complaint, he filed an amended complaint. He alleged that HUD and its employees violated federal criminal law by conspiring to allow Community Housing to place a handicapped parking space in a location that saved the landlord money but did not comply with legal requirements. He relied in part on deposition testimony from his separate case.

Court’s Analysis

Because Harris was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked authority to rule. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court explained that a private citizen cannot prosecute a federal criminal case. Harris had been told this in the earlier order and had been directed not to replead claims seeking criminal charges. His amended complaint sought to pursue the same type of criminal charges under different federal statutes, so the court dismissed those claims.

The court separately ruled that Harris’s allegations about the meeting between HUD employees and Community Housing did not state a civil claim for violation of his rights. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Disposition

The court declined to give Harris another opportunity to amend because he had already amended once and the defects could not be cured by another amendment. The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion states that the earlier order had dismissed the criminal-prosecution claims with prejudice; the current order dismisses the amended complaint and does not grant another amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Harris a copy of the order and note service on the docket.