Ramos v. Department of Homeless Services
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-03959
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Ramos v. Department of Homeless Services, Judge Broderick dismissed some claims, replaced DHS with New York City, and ordered service on the remaining defendants.
The plaintiff’s claims on behalf of other people were dismissed without prejudice, DHS was dismissed as a defendant, and the case continued against Breaking Ground and the City of New York for service and further proceedings.
What happened
In Ramos v. Department of Homeless Services, a person representing himself claimed that the New York City Department of Homeless Services and Breaking Ground failed to follow housing laws, denied him permanent housing, and failed to accommodate his disability at a temporary residence.
The court dismissed without prejudice any claims brought on behalf of other similarly situated people and dismissed the claims against the Department of Homeless Services because a New York City agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court added the City of New York as a defendant and directed that Breaking Ground and the City be served.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide whether the housing claims were legally valid. He also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. Department of Homeless Services · No. 1:22-cv-03959
- Vernon Broderick
- May 20, 2022
Background
The plaintiff, who was representing himself, sued the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) and Breaking Ground. The opinion states that Breaking Ground operates supportive housing. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to comply with housing laws and denied him permanent housing. He also identified himself as a senior with some disabilities and alleged that the defendants failed to accommodate his disability by installing safety features in the showers and bathrooms at his temporary New York City residence.
Because of those allegations, the court interpreted the complaint as asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act, a federal law that addresses housing discrimination and disability accommodations. The plaintiff had already been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Rulings
The court dismissed without prejudice any claims the plaintiff was asserting on behalf of other similarly situated individuals. “Without prejudice” means those claims were not permanently barred by this order. The court explained that a person who is not a lawyer may represent only himself, not other people.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against DHS under the New York City Charter because a city agency is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court then construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York, added the City as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, and stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare service paperwork for Breaking Ground and the City of New York. Because the plaintiff was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the United States Marshals Service was directed to serve those defendants. The court extended the service period so that service would be due 90 days after the summonses were issued. The plaintiff was told to request an extension if service was not completed within that period and to notify the court of any address change.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide whether the plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act or other housing-related claims would succeed. It was an initial screening and service order, not a decision on the underlying claims. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.