Tasfay v. Ramos

Background

Jama M. Tasfay and Desmond Rolle, proceeding without lawyers, sued Acacia Network, Inc., Johani Vialet-Rodriguez, Nadia DiSalvo, and Melissa Ramos. They alleged discrimination and other violations arising from their removal from a Department of Homeland Security shelter on May 30, 2019. Their claims invoked the Fair Housing Act and Section 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims for constitutional violations committed under color of state law. They also alleged violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, including interference with recording the removal and seizure of belongings.

In September 2021, the court dismissed all claims against the municipal defendants and all Fair Housing Act claims. It also dismissed the claims against Acacia employee Johani Vialet-Rodriguez, but allowed the Section 1983 claims against Acacia to continue. The remaining claims alleged that Acacia was involved in the removal, seizure of property, or filming-related conduct.

Motion and Report and Recommendation

Acacia moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). That motion applies a standard similar to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Acacia separately notified the plaintiffs that the court might consider materials outside the pleadings and convert the motion into one for summary judgment, which asks whether the undisputed record requires judgment for one side.

Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended converting Acacia’s motion into a summary-judgment motion and granting summary judgment to Acacia. He identified two independent reasons. First, the complaint did not adequately allege that Acacia was a state actor. Second, even assuming Acacia were a state actor, the complaint did not allege that Acacia itself participated in the challenged conduct.

District Court’s Analysis

The plaintiffs did not object to converting the motion or to the finding that the complaint failed to plead a legally sufficient claim against Acacia. The court reviewed those conclusions for clear error. The plaintiffs did object to the finding that Acacia was not a state actor and argued that Judge Cott should be disqualified because of alleged bias and incompetence. The court reviewed the state-actor issue independently as well.

Under Section 1983, a private entity may be treated as a state actor in certain circumstances, including when the government coerces or controls the entity, significantly encourages or jointly participates in the challenged conduct, or delegates a public function to the entity. The court held that the amended complaint did not allege facts satisfying any of those tests. Allegations that Acacia knew DHS officials would remove the plaintiffs and that Acacia employees were present during the removal were insufficient. The court also stated that government funding, licensing, regulation, or similar involvement alone would not establish state action without a close connection between the government and the specific conduct being challenged.

The court further held that the complaint did not allege a cognizable Section 1983 claim against Acacia even if Acacia were a state actor. The complaint alleged that Acacia owned the shelter and that its employees were present during the removal, but it did not allege that Acacia played a role in removing the plaintiffs, taking their property, or interfering with their recording.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ request to disqualify Judge Cott. It found that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts that would cause an objective, informed observer to doubt that justice could be done without his disqualification. The court also criticized the plaintiffs’ personal attacks on Judge Cott but found that those attacks did not provide a basis to reject his recommendation.

Disposition

The court accepted and adopted Judge Cott’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Acacia’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, mail the order to the plaintiffs, and close the case. The court separately denied the request to disqualify Judge Cott. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued and signed the order.