Jones v. Thomas

Background

Brandon C. Jones represented himself and sued Volunteers of America Greater New York (the “VOA”), Lyin Thomas, Jonathan Tavarez, and Deborah Johnson. The opinion also refers to Thomas as “Lijin Thomas” in parts of the factual discussion. Jones alleged that, while living at a VOA shelter from February through July 2020, he was denied disability-related accommodations and was treated improperly because of medical conditions affecting his legs and feet.

Jones alleged that shelter personnel refused or failed to provide cleaning supplies, medical equipment, a refrigerator for his medication, permission to remain in bed while injured, and access to a specialized medical pump. He also alleged that he received an infraction involving his Bi-Pap machine and that shelter employees contacted his probation officer. After he filed this federal action, he was transferred to another shelter where he had access to cleaning supplies and specialized medical equipment. He sought $800,000, termination of certain employees, an apology, and an overhaul of the VOA shelter’s management.

Arguments and analysis

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally valid claim. They argued that the case was barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion, was moot, and failed to state a claim.

The court rejected the preclusion arguments. Jones had previously brought a related action in New York state court, but that case had been dismissed under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. The court held that this type of dismissal was presumptively not a decision on the merits because the state court had not expressly said otherwise. The court likewise held that issue preclusion did not apply because the earlier pleading dismissal did not resolve the issues on their merits.

The court nevertheless held that the third amended complaint failed to state a claim. Regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, the court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Jones had alleged the elements of a disability-discrimination claim. It held, however, that a private plaintiff could obtain only injunctive relief under the relevant ADA and Rehabilitation Act theories, not the $800,000 in damages Jones requested. The court also held that Jones’s non-money requests were moot because he no longer lived at the VOA shelter and therefore did not face an ongoing injury there.

Regarding the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the court held that Jones had not alleged that he was a buyer or renter. He alleged that he had been directed or transferred to the shelter, but did not allege that he paid to live there. The court also held that his reasonable-accommodation claim failed because injunctive relief was moot; his disparate-treatment allegations did not identify facts suggesting discriminatory motivation or different treatment of similarly situated people; his disparate-impact allegations concerned only his individual experience rather than a broader effect on people with disabilities; and his retaliation allegations did not show a protected activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection supported by facts.

The court further stated that any possible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 failed because the defendants were private parties, not state actors. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law questions after dismissing the federal claims.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. The court denied Jones leave to file a fourth amended complaint because he had already received four opportunities to plead a legally cognizable claim and determined that further amendment would be futile. The Clerk was directed to close the case.