Milhouse v. Hilton Garden Inn employees

Background

Muhammad Milhouse, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. His two related actions were consolidated, and he filed an amended complaint naming the City of New York; the New York City Department of Social Services; the New York City Department of Homeless Services; “Administrative Support”; “Cleaning and Sanitizing Housekeeping Staff”; and several unidentified individuals or groups connected with a Department of Homeless Services COVID-19 isolation site at the Hilton Garden Inn.

Screening of Claims

Because Milhouse was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law.

The court dismissed Milhouse’s claims against the Department of Social Services and the Department of Homeless Services because New York City agencies generally cannot be sued separately. The court said it would treat those claims as claims against the City of New York, which was already named as a defendant.

The court also dismissed Milhouse’s claims against “Administrative Support” and “Cleaning and Sanitizing Housekeeping Staff” for failure to state a claim. It ruled that generic groups of employees or staff are not “persons” who can be sued under § 1983.

Service and Identification of Defendants

Because Milhouse had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of New York. The court stated that the amended complaint must be served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Milhouse requests more time.

The court found that Milhouse had provided enough information for the City to identify the unidentified “Site Supervisor” at the Department of Homeless Services COVID-19 isolation site at the Hilton Garden Inn during the period from January 20, 2021, through February 7, 2021. It ordered the New York City Law Department to determine that person’s identity and service address and provide the information to Milhouse and the court within 60 days.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Milhouse must file a second amended complaint naming the supervisor. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court will then screen it and, if necessary, issue further service instructions. The court declined to order identification of the other unidentified defendants at that time.

Conclusion and Disposition

The court dismissed Milhouse’s claims against the Department of Social Services, the Department of Homeless Services, “Administrative Support,” and “Cleaning and Sanitizing Housekeeping Staff” for failure to state a claim. It directed service on the City of New York and ordered assistance in identifying the unidentified site supervisor. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court screened the complaint and dismissed claims for failure to state a claim without deciding the underlying alleged civil-rights violations.