Lord v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-03890
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Lord v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed claims against two city agencies, ordered defendant-identification steps, and denied Sera Security’s motion as moot.
Donald A. Lord; the New York City Department of Homeless Services and the New York City Human Resources Administration; the City of New York; Sera Security; Project Renewal; CORE Project Group and CORE Services Group; the named defendants; and the unidentified or incompletely identified defendants.
What happened
Lord v. City of New York concerns Donald A. Lord’s claims about conditions and staff conduct at shelters where he had been living. He sued under civil-rights, disability, fair-housing, and rehabilitation laws while representing himself.
The court dismissed Lord’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services and the New York City Human Resources Administration because those city agencies cannot be sued separately; the dismissal was without prejudice to pursuing those claims against the City of New York. The court also ordered several defendants to help identify people named as “John Doe,” “Jane Doe,” or by a single name, and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve newly added defendants.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Sera Security’s motion to dismiss as moot, meaning the court did not decide that motion because Lord had filed a Second Amended Complaint. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying fees and stated that the action could continue regarding the remaining defendants and claims.
The detailed version
- Lord v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-03890
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 5, 2021
Background
Donald A. Lord, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. He asserted that conditions at various shelters where he had lived since March 2017, and actions by shelter staff and employees of the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS), the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), and Sera Security, violated his rights. Some shelters were operated by Project Renewal or CORE Services Group.
Because Lord had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The opinion addresses Lord’s Second Amended Complaint.
Claims Against DHS and HRA
The court had already dismissed DHS because it is a New York City agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court dismissed HRA for the same reason. The City of New York was already named as a defendant, so the court stated that Lord’s claims concerning DHS and HRA could be litigated against the City instead.
The conclusion states that the claims against DHS and HRA were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), without prejudice to litigation of those claims against the City of New York.
Identifying Unnamed Defendants
The court found that Lord had provided enough information for Project Renewal to identify the Jane Doe doctor at Fort Washington Men’s Shelter, whom he described as the “blonde lady doctor.” The court found that he had not provided enough information to identify the John Doe security guard or two Jane Doe police officers. Lord also named Ms. Destine, Ms. Jackson, and Ms. Fonier by only one name, and he did not provide a service address for Pedro Crespo.
Within 30 days, the court ordered:
- Project Renewal to identify the Jane Doe doctor and provide an address where she could be served; - CORE Project Group to identify Ms. Destine, Ms. Jackson, and Ms. Fonier and provide service addresses; - The City of New York to provide a service address for Pedro Crespo; and - Lord to provide more detailed information to help identify the John Doe security guard and the two Jane Doe police officers.
The court stated that, if Lord could not provide more information immediately, he might be able to amend the complaint after discovery identified the incident date and other information. The court would issue another order about service or any needed amended pleading if necessary.
Service of Newly Added Defendants
Because Lord had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare U.S. Marshals Service forms and summonses so the Marshals Service could serve CORE Services Group, Sabrina Soto, Dianne Flourival, and Robert Tablizy at the addresses listed in the order. The court also directed Lord to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Sera Security’s Motion
The court denied Sera Security’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint as moot because Lord had filed a Second Amended Complaint. The order therefore did not decide the motion’s underlying arguments.
Disposition
Lord v. City of New York was not resolved on the merits in this order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the claims against DHS and HRA, without prejudice to pursuing those claims against the City of New York; ordered information to identify and serve additional defendants; directed service of newly added defendants through the Marshals Service; and denied Sera Security’s motion to dismiss as moot. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lord permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.