Davis v. Port Jervis Community Development

Background

Daryl J. Davis filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He alleged that Port Jervis Community Development discriminated against him by terminating his status as a Section 8 tenant. After the court directed him to amend his complaint to allege facts supporting a claim under the Fair Housing Act or another federal law, Davis requested and received additional time. He then filed an amended complaint naming Port Jervis Community Development, Nora Gallagher/Goetz, and Manager Valerie Maginsky.

The amended complaint alleged “breech of contract, discrimination, negligence, and more.” Davis appeared to allege that the defendants’ actions caused problems with his landlord and led to termination of his Section 8 benefits. He sought monetary damages and reinstatement of his Section 8 voucher and housing.

Court’s analysis

Because Davis was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court considered whether the allegations stated a claim under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination based on specified factors, including race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. It also prohibits retaliation for asserting rights protected by that law. The court concluded that, even reading the amended complaint generously, Davis did not allege facts suggesting that the defendants discriminated or retaliated against him on any prohibited basis. The court therefore dismissed the discrimination claim.

The court separately addressed Davis’s state-law claims for breach of contract and negligence. Because Davis had not stated a federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over those claims. The court also advised that a challenge to the termination of Section 8 benefits could be presented through judicial review under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Disposition

The court dismissed Davis’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to grant another opportunity to amend because Davis had already been given an opportunity to correct the pleading and the court found that further amendment could not cure the defects. Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk of Court to mail Davis a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.