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, in February 2022, a flyer was posted in the lobby of his NYCHA building accusing him of being a rapist and drug addict, claiming he had been violent with police, and warning residents not to ride the elevator with him. Mercer alleged that the management office posted the flyer, that its statements were false and defamatory, and that it damaged his reputation.

Mercer also alleged that someone called the police, after which police and emergency medical personnel entered his apartment and took him to a hospital without justification. He said there were no police or medical records of those events. He sought $20 billion in damages and invoked both diversity jurisdiction and constitutional protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Court’s analysis

Because Mercer alleged that NYCHA violated his constitutional rights, the court construed the complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That law provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state authority. For a claim against a municipal entity such as NYCHA, the plaintiff must allege that the entity itself caused the violation through a policy, custom, or practice; allegations that an employee or agent acted improperly are not enough by themselves.

The court also considered whether the allegations could support a due-process claim under the “stigma-plus” doctrine. That doctrine can apply when a government statement harms a person’s reputation and the government also imposes a significant burden or changes the person’s legal status or rights. The court assumed for purposes of this stage that Mercer’s allegation about NYCHA posting the flyer was true, even though the flyer itself did not connect it to NYCHA. But the court concluded that Mercer did not allege that the flyer was posted because of a NYCHA policy, custom, or practice. The complaint therefore did not state a § 1983 claim against NYCHA.

The court also noted that Mercer had not alleged complete diversity of citizenship because the opinion stated that both Mercer and NYCHA were citizens of New York. The court reviewed the complaint under the standards governing complaints filed without prepaying fees, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted Mercer leave to file an amended complaint because it was not apparent that amendment would be futile. The amended complaint had to comply with federal pleading rules, be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days, be labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 22-CV-2271 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mercer fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order because the court screened the complaint and identified pleading and jurisdictional defects without deciding whether Mercer’s underlying constitutional claims were legally proven. The court granted leave to amend rather than dismissing the complaint at that point.