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 DHS and HRA, ordered identification and service steps, and denied Sera Security’s motion as moot.
Donald A. Lord’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services and the New York City Human Resources Administration were dismissed, while claims concerning those entities could be pursued against the City of New York. Project Renewal, CORE Project Group, the City, and Lord were ordered to take steps to identify defendants, and newly added defendants were to be served through the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Lord v. City of New York, Donald A. Lord, who was representing himself, sued under civil-rights, disability, fair-housing, and rehabilitation laws over conditions and events at shelters. The opinion says he had lived in various shelters since March 2017 and named city agencies, shelter-related entities and employees, security personnel, and unidentified defendants.
The court dismissed Lord’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services and the New York City Human Resources Administration because city agencies could not be sued as separate entities. The court said those claims could instead be litigated against the City of New York. It also ordered several entities and the City to provide information needed to identify defendants and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve newly added defendants.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Sera Security’s motion to dismiss as moot because Lord had filed a Second Amended Complaint. The order also denied free legal status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
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 alleged that claims arose from conditions at various shelters where he had lived since March 2017, including shelters operated by Project Renewal or CORE Services Group, and from actions by shelter staff, employees of the New York City Department of Homeless Services and the New York City Human Resources Administration, and Sera Security, identified as a private security firm.
The court had previously allowed Lord to proceed without paying filing fees. In screening a complaint filed under that status, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must interpret a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.
Rulings on DHS and HRA
The court stated that it had already dismissed the Department of Homeless Services because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued separately. It dismissed the claims against the Human Resources Administration for the same reason. The conclusion states that these dismissals were without prejudice to litigating the claims concerning those entities 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, described in the complaint as the “blonde lady doctor.” It found that he had not provided enough information about the John Doe security guard or the two Jane Doe police officers. It also noted that several defendants were identified only by a single name and that Lord had not provided a service address for Pedro Crespo.
The order required, within thirty days:
- Project Renewal to identify the Jane Doe doctor and provide an address where that defendant 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.
- Lord to provide more detailed information to help the City, Project Renewal, and/or Sera Security identify the John Doe security guard and the two Jane Doe police officers. The court stated that, if he could not provide more information then, he might be able to amend the complaint after discovery identified additional information.
The court said it could issue a further order about service or the need for an amended pleading after the required information was provided.
Service of Newly Added Defendants
Because Lord had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare service paperwork for CORE Services Group, Sabrina Soto, Dianne Flourival, and Robert Tablizy at the address listed in the order. The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. Lord was required to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court 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.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Lord’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services and the New York City Human Resources Administration, without prejudice to litigating those claims against the City of New York. The order also directed the identification and service steps described above, denied Sera Security’s motion to dismiss as moot, and denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.