Jones v. Banks

Background

Keisha Jones proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying the filing fee. She filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against the City of New York; Steven Banks; employees of NYC HRA Center #18; Urban Pathways, Inc./Olivieri Drop In Center; and Help USA, Inc. She described alleged problems with shelter and housing services, including unsuitable shelter conditions, denial of requested accommodations, room searches, alleged retaliation, disputed records, storage-payment problems, reduced cash benefits, and other conduct. She asserted federal claims and state-law theories including fraud, privacy invasion, emotional distress, breach of contract, discrimination, and harassment. She sought money damages and injunctive relief.

The court had previously denied her initial request for immediate relief and allowed her to amend. In reviewing the amended complaint, the court applied the screening requirement for fee-waived complaints: it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Federal Claims

The court dismissed claims concerning housing conditions and assignments because there is no constitutional right to a particular shelter assignment or to shelter of a particular quality. It also found that the amended complaint did not allege facts showing discrimination because of a disability, denial of a reasonable accommodation for a disability, or that any named defendant violated a federally protected right. The court repeated the reasons given in its earlier order for dismissing previously asserted claims.

The court rejected the retaliation claim. It assumed, for purposes of analysis, that Jones’s advocacy about personal concerns could receive First Amendment protection. But it found that she did not allege facts showing that the defendants’ actions were caused by her complaints or that those actions effectively discouraged her from exercising her speech rights.

The court also rejected the procedural due-process claim concerning delays, reductions, or other problems with benefits. It recognized that public-assistance benefits can be protected property interests. But Jones alleged that she had participated in fair hearings and did not allege that she sought review through a state-court Article 78 proceeding. The court held that these available procedures were adequate, so she did not state a federal due-process claim.

As to the City of New York, the court explained that a municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because an employee or agent allegedly acted improperly. Jones had to allege a city policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation. The court found that she had not done so and dismissed her § 1983 claims against the City.

State-Law Claims and Requested Relief

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court also concluded that another amendment would not cure the defects and declined to give Jones another opportunity to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It denied the application for injunctive relief as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that application. The opinion also observed, without dismissing claims on that basis, that some claims might be untimely because certain events occurred in 2016 and the first half of 2017. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.