Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-08842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Schofield denied Mercer’s request to amend, finding he had not cured his Fair Housing Act claims, and closed the case.
Robert Mercer, the self-represented plaintiff, and the New York City Housing Authority; the court denied permission to amend and closed the case.
What happened
In Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority, Robert Mercer asked to add facts to his housing-discrimination claims after the court had dismissed his amended complaint. The court treated his response as a request for permission to file another amended complaint.
The court found that Mercer still had not explained which major life activity his condition substantially limited or shown that the Housing Authority knew about his condition. The court also found that his proposed age-discrimination claim could not proceed under the Fair Housing Act because that law does not prohibit housing discrimination based on age.
Judge Schofield denied Mercer’s motion for leave to amend and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also directed that a copy be mailed to Mercer, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:19-cv-08842
- Lorna Schofield
- May 11, 2021
Background
On January 22, 2021, the court granted the New York City Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss Robert Mercer’s amended complaint. That earlier order dismissed claims under the Fair Housing Act and a Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 5.703(f). The court gave Mercer permission to submit a letter stating additional facts showing that his condition significantly impaired a major life activity and that the Housing Authority knew about his condition, including how and when it learned of the condition.
Mercer filed a response on May 5, 2021. His response included additional facts and a new allegation that he had experienced age discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Because Mercer was representing himself, the court read his response broadly and treated it as a motion for leave to amend the amended complaint.
Reasoning
The court explained that permission to amend a pleading should generally be granted when fairness requires it. But permission may be denied when the plaintiff cannot show that an amended complaint would survive dismissal.
The court found that Mercer’s response did not fix the problems identified in the earlier order. Although Mercer listed symptoms and conditions, he did not explain what major life activity was impaired or how his condition substantially limited that activity. He also provided no facts suggesting that the Housing Authority knew about his disability.
The court separately rejected the proposed age-discrimination allegation. It explained that the Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on specified characteristics, including disability, but does not prohibit housing discrimination based on age.
Ruling
The court ordered that Mercer’s motion for leave to amend was denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Mercer a copy of the order and close the case. This order is classified as a procedural order because it decided whether Mercer could amend his pleading rather than deciding the underlying discrimination claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.