Milhouse v. Hilton Garden Inn employees

Background

Muhammad Milhouse, proceeding without a lawyer, filed two actions alleging that employees associated with Hilton Garden Inn and New York City homeless-services programs assaulted him. The first action named Hilton Garden Inn employees and Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., among others. The second named New York City Department of Homeless Services-related employees, Project Renewal or Ana’s Place-related defendants, and the City of New York, among others. The complaints also referred to unidentified John and Jane Doe defendants. Milhouse sought money damages.

The complaints were each more than 70 pages and included factual allegations, legal materials, medical records, agency complaints, and other attachments. The court found that the allegations were confusing, included material that appeared unrelated to the asserted claims, and did not clearly identify all intended defendants or explain each defendant’s conduct.

Consolidation

The court consolidated the two actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 because they involved common legal or factual issues and possibly some of the same defendants. All future filings were to be made in the lead action, No. 22-CV-2934. The higher-numbered action, No. 22-CV-2940, remained open for administrative purposes, but no further action was required on that docket for the case to proceed.

Screening and pleading defects

Because Milhouse had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court held that the complaints did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court also found that the complaints did not clearly identify the defendants as required by Rule 10. It granted leave to file one amended complaint that identifies every intended defendant in the caption and explains the facts showing how each defendant allegedly violated Milhouse’s rights.

Claims under the Uniform Code of Military Justice

To the extent Milhouse intended to assert claims under 10 U.S.C. § 920, the court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim. The court explained that Section 920 is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is a criminal statute, and does not provide a private right of action.

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The court construed Milhouse’s potential constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a civil claim for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state law.

The court explained that private parties generally are not liable under Section 1983. It found that Hilton Garden Inn and its employees were not state actors based on the allegations presented. A contract with the City of New York or receipt of public funds generally does not convert a private entity’s conduct into state action, and Milhouse had not alleged enough facts showing joint action between Hilton employees and government actors. The court likewise stated that Project Renewal and Ana’s Place were private entities and that Milhouse had not alleged facts attributing their conduct to the state.

The court also explained that a Section 1983 claim requires personal involvement by each defendant. Naming groups such as “Hilton Garden staff employees,” “men’s shelter employees,” or “DHS employees” was not enough. If Milhouse intended to sue individual employees, he had to name them individually or use John Doe or Jane Doe designations and allege what each person personally did.

The court stated that the New York City Department of Homeless Services could not be sued as a city agency. Because Milhouse appeared to intend to sue the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City. It explained that a claim against the City would require facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation, not merely that a city employee acted wrongfully.

Americans with Disabilities Act

The court discussed Milhouse’s references to the Americans with Disabilities Act. It stated that, if he intended to assert a disability-discrimination claim for injunctive relief in the amended complaint, he would need to allege facts showing that he had a qualifying disability, that the defendants were covered by the statute, and that they discriminated against him. The court also directed him to identify the injunctive relief he sought. It explained that an individual may obtain injunctive relief under Title III but may not recover damages under that title.

Disposition and amendment

The court dismissed Milhouse’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed any claims he may have been asserting under 10 U.S.C. § 920 for failure to state a claim. The court granted Milhouse 60 days to file a single amended complaint under docket number 22-CV-2934. That amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and any facts or claims Milhouse wanted considered had to be repeated in the amended filing. No summons would issue at that time.

The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline, without showing good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.