Ramos v. Department of Homeless Services

Background

Jose Antonio Ramos sued Breaking Ground and the New York City Department of Homeless Services concerning housing at 123 East 15th Street. He alleged that seniors and people with disabilities were afraid to use showers or bathrooms because of missing safety strips or bars. He also alleged that, despite complying with requirements over nine months, he was not offered permanent housing while other people received housing sooner. The court had previously dismissed Ramos’s claims against the Department of Homeless Services and directed that summonses be issued for Breaking Ground and the City of New York.

Ramos first sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction—emergency orders intended to prevent immediate harm—and the court denied that motion. He later moved to amend his complaint, alleging harassment and unequal access to housing for Hispanic people. On August 18, 2022, he filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on behalf of himself, Billy Figueroa, and other similarly situated people. The motion included Figueroa’s affidavit, which described alleged harassment by Figueroa’s roommate and requested that Figueroa be moved to a single room.

Claims on Behalf of Other People

The court held that Ramos, as a nonlawyer representing himself, could litigate only interests personal to him. Because Figueroa’s harassment allegations concerned Figueroa personally rather than Ramos, the court dismissed without prejudice Ramos’s claims asserted on behalf of Figueroa and other similarly situated people. The order noted that this dismissal did not prevent Figueroa from bringing a future action based on his own claims.

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

To obtain either emergency order, Ramos had to show irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him. The court described irreparable harm as the most important requirement and stated that, without a showing of irreparable harm, it did not need to consider the other requirements.

The court treated Ramos’s allegations of harassment, denial of housing, and unsafe showers and bathrooms as conclusory and lacking enough detail to show irreparable harm. The court also considered the allegations under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing-related services or facilities based on characteristics including race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. The court recited the elements of an initial showing of housing discrimination but did not find that Ramos had met the emergency-injunction standard.

Breaking Ground stated that Ramos had been offered six separate housing opportunities and refused each one. The City of New York stated that Ramos had been offered five interviews for permanent housing, declined all but one, and was rejected from the one interview in part because of discrepancies between his answers and his referral materials. The City also stated that Ramos declined apartments offered by private landlords. Regarding safety strips, the court noted that Ramos had not alleged a disability or filed grievances or requested reasonable accommodations concerning mobility or accessibility.

Disposition

The court denied Ramos’s second motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motions at docket entries 12, 13, and 16 and to mail a copy of the order to Ramos.