Belmar v. G&M Realty I LLC

Background

Rene Belmar, who was representing himself and had permission to proceed without prepaying court fees, filed suit under the court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. He alleged that defendants violated his rights as a tenant. The defendants identified in the opinion included G&M Realty, Peter, a landlord; Samone Silvester, a representative of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development; “Kathering” Kevith, a tenant in Belmar’s building; Heath Tyger, an attorney for G&M Realty; and Judge Howard Baum, who was handling Belmar’s landlord-tenant case.

Belmar’s allegations concerned conditions in his apartment, including lack of heat, a water leak, and alleged rent overcharges. He also complained about conduct by a neighboring tenant, actions and decisions in the Bronx Housing Civil Court, alleged housing discrimination based on race, and alleged damage or theft of personal property. He sought money damages.

Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or cases involving citizens of different states where more than $75,000 is in dispute. Landlord-tenant disputes generally do not belong in federal court because they are matters of state law.

The court considered whether Belmar’s references to federal rights created federal-question jurisdiction. It concluded that his allegations did not establish a viable federal claim. The court also found that diversity jurisdiction was absent because Belmar alleged that he and the defendants were citizens of New York.

Civil-rights and housing claims

The court stated that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting for the state or another government body. It concluded that G&M Realty, Peter, Kevith, and Tyger were private parties and that Belmar had not alleged facts showing that they acted as government officials or that their conduct could be attributed to the government.

The court further held that Judge Baum was protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions, omissions, and decisions made in the landlord-tenant case. The court also concluded that Belmar had not stated a viable claim against Silvester or the housing department based on apartment conditions, explaining that the Constitution does not guarantee adequate or safe housing.

The court separately considered the Fair Housing Act, a federal law that prohibits certain housing discrimination and retaliation. It found that Belmar had not alleged facts showing that a defendant discriminated against him or retaliated against him because of race or another protected characteristic. The court noted that his allegations mainly expressed dissatisfaction with Judge Baum’s actions and decisions in the state landlord-tenant case.

Disposition

The court dismissed Belmar’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging specific facts supporting a Fair Housing Act claim over which the federal court would have jurisdiction. The court stated that an amended complaint challenging Judge Baum’s decisions or raising issues from the landlord-tenant case would be dismissed for the reasons stated in the order.

The court terminated all other pending matters. It warned that continued duplicative, frivolous, or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Belmar to explain why he should not be barred from filing new cases without prepaying fees unless he first obtained court permission. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.