Johnson v. Fudge

Background

Jolyne Nerissa Johnson appeared without a lawyer and filed the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. She sued Marcia L. Fudge, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Miguel Cardona, the Secretary of the Department of Education; and Kilolo Kijakazi, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Johnson sued the defendants only in their official capacities.

Johnson identified the “Fair Housing Acts” and the Fourteenth Amendment as the rights involved. She alleged that her claims arose in New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, all 50 states and territories, and over the period from 1998 through 2021. She alleged that she had tried to obtain housing funds since 1998, experienced housing insecurity and periods of being undomiciled, and could not pursue higher education, obtain proper medical treatment, or receive training related to her disabilities. She further alleged that HUD had not provided a Section 8 voucher for many years, that a recently granted voucher was set to expire, that Department of Education housing allowances were too low, and that Social Security payments were too low to obtain housing. She sought a lump-sum payment sufficient to buy a home and pay maintenance costs for life.

Court’s analysis

Because Johnson had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a claim legally plausible.

The court held that sovereign immunity barred Johnson’s claims for monetary damages against federal officials sued in their official capacities. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits for damages against the federal government, its agencies, and federal officers sued officially unless the government has waived that protection. The court stated that Johnson did not allege facts showing that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s procedural requirements had been satisfied.

The court also held that Johnson’s housing claims failed to state a claim for relief. Relying on precedent, it explained that the Constitution does not guarantee access to housing of a particular quality or otherwise create a constitutional right to adequate housing. The court further found that Johnson had not alleged facts showing that she was denied a benefit to which she was legally entitled.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), which concern failure to state a claim and seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that amendment would be futile. The court terminated all other pending matters.

The court warned that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring Johnson from filing new actions in that court without prior permission. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.