Jones v. City of New York

Background

Keisha A. Jones filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. She sued the City of New York, the New York City Comptroller, the New York City Department of Social Services, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Urban Pathways, Inc., Help USA Inc., Westhab, Inc., Institute for Community Living, Inc., and ICL Program Director Tamara Bryant.

Jones alleged that, beginning in 2016 and continuing through later events, shelter providers and city-related entities failed to provide or honor disability-related reasonable accommodations. Her allegations included denial of copies of intake documents, inadequate food, transfers between shelters, room-entry checks, searches of personal belongings, alleged false records, pressure to undergo a psychological evaluation, and rejection of a housing application after she asked about an accommodation and requested to complete the process by mail. She sought money damages and injunctive relief.

The opinion also described an earlier related proceeding involving many of the same allegations. In that earlier round, the court dismissed claims for failure to state a claim and allowed Jones to replead claims under the Fair Housing Act. The court later dismissed the amended complaint as well.

Claims under Section 1983

The court dismissed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Urban Pathways, Help USA, Westhab, ICL, and Tamara Bryant. Section 1983 requires facts showing that a person violated a federal right while acting for the government. The court found that these defendants were private parties and that Jones had not alleged facts showing their challenged conduct was attributable to the government. The court noted that public funding alone does not make a private entity a government actor.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the Department of Social Services and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development because city agencies generally cannot be sued as separate entities. It dismissed claims based on shelter conditions and placement in a particular shelter because the Constitution does not provide a right to housing or to placement in a shelter of a particular quality or type.

The court also dismissed the claims against the City of New York. Jones had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation or a city policy, custom, or practice that caused one. The court dismissed the claim against the Comptroller because there is generally no constitutional right to an investigation or response from government officials, and the opinion found that the stated exceptions did not apply.

For claims against the City, Urban Pathways, and Help USA arising before Jones filed her amended complaint in the earlier related proceeding, the court applied claim preclusion. Claim preclusion is a rule that generally prevents a party from bringing a later case based on claims that were or could have been raised in an earlier case involving the same parties and a final judgment on the merits.

Fair Housing Act claims

The court treated the complaint as possibly asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act based on disability discrimination and the denial of reasonable accommodations. To state that type of claim, a plaintiff must allege a disability, the defendant’s knowledge of it, the necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation, and the defendant’s refusal to provide it.

The court found that Jones had not identified the nature of her disability, specified the accommodations she requested, or explained how those accommodations were necessary for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing or shelter. Rather than end the case entirely at that point, the court granted Jones leave to amend and provide additional facts supporting a Fair Housing Act claim. The court also stated that she could include additional facts supporting a Section 1983 claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the fee-waiver screening statute. It granted Jones 30 days to file an amended complaint that would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court instructed her to identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. No summons would issue at that time, and failure to amend within the allowed period without good cause would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was instructed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.