Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Robert Mercer, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). He alleged that a February 2019 court stipulation required NYCHA to make repairs to his apartment, including repairs to his mailbox. Mercer said he had requested a mailbox-cylinder change for nearly 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, mental anguish, headaches, and a loss of quality of life. He also alleged that he could not respond to court mailings on time, that a court representative had to confirm his address after a mailing was returned, and that his Supplemental Security Income and welfare matters were affected because he could not timely receive or respond to mail. He sought $10 billion in damages. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and referred to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 214. The court noted that complete diversity was not alleged because both Mercer and NYCHA were citizens of New York.

Earlier ruling and amended complaint

The court had dismissed Mercer’s original complaint on January 8, 2022, for failure to state a claim but allowed him to amend. The court had treated his allegations as potentially asserting that he had a constitutional right to a functioning mailbox and that NYCHA interfered with his access to the courts. It previously explained that 24 C.F.R. § 5.703(f) did not create a federal right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that there was no constitutional right to housing or a mailbox, and that Mercer had not plausibly alleged that NYCHA had a policy, custom, or practice causing a constitutional violation involving access to the courts.

Mercer first filed an unsigned proposed amended complaint. After the court directed him to resubmit it with a signature, he filed a signed amended complaint on March 6, 2022. The court found that the amended complaint was virtually identical to the original and did not cure the previously identified deficiencies.

Court’s reasoning

Because Mercer was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, such complaints must still provide enough facts to make entitlement to relief plausible.

The court adopted the reasons given in its January 8 order and dismissed the federal causes of action in the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court also declined to allow another amendment because Mercer had already received an opportunity to amend and the defects appeared incurable.

Disposition

The court dismissed all federal causes of action asserted in the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Mercer may have asserted. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mercer permission to appeal without paying fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Mercer, enter judgment against him, and close the case.