Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Robert Mercer proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to file without paying court fees in advance. He alleged that a February 27, 2019 court stipulation directed the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to make repairs to his apartment, including his mailbox. Mercer alleged that he had requested a mailbox cylinder change for almost three years, paid for a copy of a mail key, and still had not received the key or information about when the mailbox would be repaired.

Mercer alleged that the mailbox problem caused stress, depression, headaches, mental anguish, and loss of quality of life. He also alleged that he had difficulty receiving court mail, Supplemental Security Income mail, and public-benefit mail. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, cited 24 C.F.R. § 5.703, and sought $10 billion in damages. The court noted that both parties were citizens of New York, so complete diversity was not alleged.

Legal framework

Because Mercer was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, while still requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. The court also construed the complaint as asserting a constitutional right to a functioning mailbox and a constitutional claim based on access to the courts.

Claims under 24 C.F.R. § 5.703

The court held that 24 C.F.R. § 5.703, which sets housing-program requirements including health and safety conditions, does not create an individual right that can be enforced through § 1983. The court therefore dismissed Mercer’s claims under that regulation for failure to state a claim.

Constitutional claims

The court rejected Mercer’s claim that NYCHA had a constitutional obligation to provide him with a functioning mailbox. It reasoned that such a right would assume a constitutional right to adequate housing, and the court concluded that no such constitutional right exists.

The court also dismissed Mercer’s access-to-the-courts claim. To state that type of claim, a plaintiff must allege deliberate and malicious conduct that caused an actual injury to a legal claim. Because NYCHA was the only defendant, Mercer also had to allege that a NYCHA policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that he had not alleged such a policy, custom, or practice. The court further found that Mercer had not alleged that NYCHA prevented him from using other ways to monitor or pursue his legal matters. The complaint itself stated that court representatives and the Supplemental Security Income office contacted him about returned mail and that he could receive mail by waiting for the mail carrier.

State-law claims and opportunity to amend

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Mercer might be asserting.

The court granted Mercer 30 days to replead a viable access-to-the-courts claim against the individual or individuals who allegedly violated his rights. It directed him to file an amended complaint that would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that, if Mercer did not comply and could not show good cause, it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until judgment was entered and to mail Mercer a copy of the order.