Tasfay v. Ramos

Background

Jama M. Tasfay and Desmond Rolle, proceeding without lawyers, sued Acacia Network, Inc., Johani Vialet-Rodriguez, Nadia DiSalvo, and Melissa Ramos. They alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part a motion by the Acacia Defendants. This opinion addressed the Municipal Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were removed from a Department of Homeless Services shelter on or about May 31, 2019, after receiving notice from Ramos. They alleged that DHS police seized many of their belongings and held them outside the apartment. They also alleged that DiSalvo hit one plaintiff’s hand, causing that plaintiff’s phone to fall, while the plaintiffs attempted to record the encounter. The amended complaint sought $4 million in damages.

Fair Housing Act claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Fair Housing Act claim. The plaintiffs alleged that Ramos removed them because of their race and that she knew their race from Department of Homeless Services records. The court held that these were conclusory allegations and did not provide even the minimal factual support needed to plausibly show discriminatory intent. Because it dismissed the claim on that ground, the court did not address the defendants’ additional argument that the claim was barred by claim preclusion.

Fourth Amendment claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim. It explained that the seizure of belongings during an eviction can violate the Fourth Amendment when the seizure is unreasonable, but the complaint did not provide enough facts to support a reasonable inference that the seizure here was unreasonable. The complaint did not specify how long the plaintiffs were held outside or provide other facts showing that the officers’ involvement was unlawful under the standard applied by the court.

First Amendment claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect a public official from civil damages when the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right. The court assumed, without deciding, that people generally had a clearly established right in the Second Circuit to record an officer performing official duties. It held that the alleged conduct fell outside that right’s established limits because the plaintiffs were the subjects of the officers’ activity, rather than bystanders or journalists. The court therefore concluded that DiSalvo was protected by qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court granted the Municipal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It administratively denied as moot the defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint. It also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying the appeal fees. The court stated that the Acacia Defendants’ pending motion for judgment on the pleadings would be resolved later. Judge Alison J. Nathan directed the Clerk of Court to mail the opinion and order to the plaintiffs.