Brock v. The City of New York

Background

Mandela Brock, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued the City of New York; the Department of Homeless Services; Acacia Network; Services for the Underserved; several employees; and unidentified defendants. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for certain constitutional violations by people acting under state law. He also invoked the federal Fair Housing Act and asserted a state-law claim described as “false misrepresentation.”

Brock alleged that the Department of Homeless Services repeatedly found him and his 13-year-old son ineligible for housing, required them to restart the intake process, and moved them to shelters he considered undesirable. He alleged that Daniel Reyes and Tatiana Cave discriminated against him because he was homeless, that he was transferred in retaliation for asserting his rights, and that Donnell Burt seized unidentified property without a warrant. He also challenged a shelter rule concerning leaving his son alone and alleged that defendants called child-protection authorities more than 30 times.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that the Department of Homeless Services, as a city agency, was not an entity that could be sued. As to the City, the court explained that a municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because an employee or agent allegedly acted wrongfully. Brock needed to allege a city policy, custom, or practice that caused the claimed constitutional violation, and the court found that he had not done so. The court allowed him to provide additional facts in an amended complaint.

The court also found that Brock had not alleged facts showing that Acacia Network, Services for the Underserved, or their employees were acting for the government. The court explained that private conduct becomes attributable to the government only under recognized circumstances, such as government coercion or control, joint activity, or performance of a function delegated by the government. The complaint’s allegation that the City had “endorsed” the private defendants’ actions was not enough.

The court treated Brock’s discrimination claim as arising under the Fair Housing Act. It concluded that homelessness is not a protected characteristic under that law or another federal antidiscrimination statute, and that the complaint did not connect the challenged events to a protected characteristic. The court also found that the retaliation allegations did not show that defendants’ actions were caused by Brock’s exercise of a First Amendment right or that the actions effectively discouraged him from exercising that right. The court further noted that federal or state law did not give Brock a property right to placement in a particular type of shelter.

Emergency relief and amendment

Brock sought a temporary restraining order through an order to show cause. The court denied that request because the allegations did not state a viable claim under § 1983 or the Fair Housing Act, and Brock had not shown either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting emergency relief.

The court granted Brock leave to amend because he was representing himself, although it was unclear whether the defects could be cured. He was required to submit an amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, identify it as an “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 21-CV-3087 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court also directed that any amended complaint refer to Brock’s minor son only by his initials.

Disposition

The order to show cause was denied, and the Clerk was directed to terminate it. Brock was granted leave to file an amended complaint. The court stated that if he did not comply within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.