Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Robert Mercer, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). He alleged that a March 17, 2022, lead-paint test at the NYCHA housing complex where he lives detected a lead measurement of 0.8, which he said exceeded the 0.5 threshold for non-hazardous conditions. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, asserted claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 24 C.F.R. § 5.703, and sought $10 million in damages plus a $5 million civil penalty.

The court noted that Mercer and NYCHA are both citizens of New York, so complete diversity was not established. The court reviewed the complaint under the screening rules for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek barred monetary relief, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Constitutional and Section 1983 Claims

Mercer’s constitutional claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims against a state actor for violating federal rights. For a claim against a municipal entity such as NYCHA, the plaintiff must allege that a NYCHA policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation.

The court held that Mercer failed to state a constitutional claim. It explained that the Constitution does not provide a right to adequate or safe housing. Because the alleged lead condition did not establish an underlying constitutional violation, the court dismissed Mercer’s Section 1983 claims against NYCHA for failure to state a claim.

Claim Under 24 C.F.R. § 5.703

Section 5.703 describes housing-program requirements, including that housing areas and components be free of health and safety hazards and that dwelling units and common areas be free of certain observable deficiencies. The court held that this regulation does not create a private right of action or an individual right enforceable through Section 1983. It therefore dismissed Mercer’s claims under Section 5.703 for failure to state a claim.

Fair Housing Act

Based partly on information in Mercer’s earlier filings, the court read the complaint liberally as possibly attempting to assert a claim under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA prohibits disability discrimination in housing and requires reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The court found that Mercer had not alleged enough facts to plausibly state an FHA claim. However, because he was representing himself and the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile, it granted him 30 days to replead an FHA claim. The court identified facts he would need to allege, including that he has a disability, NYCHA knew or should have known about it, he requested a reasonable accommodation related to the lead in his apartment and its effect on his disability, and NYCHA refused the accommodation.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Mercer may have intended to assert. The court said it would reconsider whether to exercise that jurisdiction if Mercer stated a viable FHA claim.

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Mercer 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Mercer did not amend within the permitted time, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the federal claims and declining to consider the state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.