Sykes v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Derry Sykes, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). He asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law. He sought damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction. He also filed a motion seeking immediate emergency repairs to his NYCHA apartment.

Sykes alleged that he and other members of his household are disabled and that they live in a NYCHA apartment in Manhattan. He described multiple unrepaired conditions, including water leaks, collapsing or damaged walls and ceilings, mold, low water pressure, a defective toilet, damaged electrical outlets, and possible electrical-fire hazards. He alleged that he submitted repair requests in 2019, 2020, and 2021 and complained to NYCHA employees, but that the repairs had not been completed.

Screening standard

Because Sykes had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough factual detail to state a plausible claim.

Fair Housing Act

The court held that Sykes had not alleged enough facts to state a Fair Housing Act disability-discrimination or reasonable-accommodation claim. Even assuming that he had a disability covered by the Act, he did not allege facts showing that disability was a motivating factor in NYCHA’s failure to make repairs. He also did not allege facts showing that, without a requested reasonable accommodation, he had been denied or was likely to be denied an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his apartment.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act

The court applied generally the same standards to Sykes’s Title II Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims. Even assuming that Sykes was a qualified person with a disability and that the statutes applied to NYCHA, the court found that he had not alleged facts showing that NYCHA denied him access to, or discriminated against him in providing, its services, programs, or activities because of his disability.

42 U.S.C. § 1983

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a local government entity, a plaintiff must allege that a government policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Sykes had not alleged facts showing that an NYCHA policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court granted Sykes leave to amend his complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, and it must include the facts and claims Sykes wants the court to consider. The court instructed him to provide information about relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that if he failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, it would dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Sykes fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of his motion seeking immediate emergency repairs.