Belmar v. G&M Realty I LLC

Background

Rene Belmar, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued G&M Realty and other defendants. The defendants identified in the opinion included Peter, described as a landlord; Samone Silvester, a representative of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development; “Kathering” Kevith, a tenant; Heath Tyger, an attorney for G&M Realty; and Judge Howard Baum, who presided over Belmar’s landlord-tenant case. Belmar’s amended complaint also named Jeneifer Ryan and Mr. Marco, whom he identified as building staff members.

Belmar invoked diversity jurisdiction and alleged disputes involving his apartment, including water leaks and insufficient heat, rent charges, and a fellow tenant’s conduct. He also challenged actions and orders in the Bronx Housing Civil Court case and alleged that Silvester discriminated against him based on race. In an earlier order, the court found no diversity jurisdiction because Belmar and the defendants were citizens of New York. The court also concluded that Belmar had not stated a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and had not alleged facts supporting a Fair Housing Act claim, but gave him 30 days to amend to allege additional facts supporting such a claim.

Amended Complaint and Analysis

The amended complaint presented Belmar’s allegations as criminal charges and sought sanctions, penalties, and a trial. He alleged, among other things, that his landlord entered his apartment using a false police report because of racism and housing discrimination, that defendants carried out an “intentionally false eviction,” and that defendants committed perjury and other corruption in the housing-court case.

The court held that Belmar had not overcome its earlier jurisdictional ruling. He did not allege facts showing that he exercised rights under the Fair Housing Act or that defendants coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with him because of his race. Instead, the court found that he continued to challenge actions and decisions in the landlord-tenant proceeding and did not assert a Fair Housing Act claim or another claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to grant another opportunity to amend because Belmar had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured with further amendment. The court terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The court also warned that continued filings found to be duplicative, frivolous, or otherwise lacking merit could lead to an order requiring Belmar to explain why he should not be barred from filing new actions without paying the filing fee and without prior court permission. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.