Holmes v. The City of New York

Background

Benjiman Holmes proceeded without a lawyer and alleged that he was attacked on multiple occasions at a facility operated by the Neighborhood Association for Inter-Cultural Affairs (NAICA). He alleged that NAICA employee Anthony Acosta broke into his locker, took food worth $65, withheld his medication despite knowing that Holmes had a heart condition, and was behind the attacks. Holmes also alleged that the New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) failed to place him in a protective location and that he was wrongfully arrested after an incident on December 23, 2021. He alleged head trauma treated at a hospital and sought $9 million in damages.

The court treated the constitutional-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for constitutional violations caused by a person acting under state authority. The court had previously allowed Holmes to proceed without paying filing fees, so it screened the complaint under the statute governing such cases.

Rulings

DHS. The court dismissed Holmes’s claims against DHS because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued under the New York City Charter. The court did not state that the claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.

NAICA. The court dismissed Holmes’s Section 1983 claims against NAICA for failure to state a claim. It concluded that NAICA is a private entity that provides housing, and that providing housing is not a function exclusive to the government. The court also stated that receiving public funds does not by itself make private conduct governmental conduct.

Anthony Acosta. The court stated that the Section 1983 claims against Acosta could not proceed because he was alleged to work for a private entity. The order dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Acosta, while also granting Holmes leave to provide more facts about Acosta’s alleged conduct, including why Acosta allegedly withheld Holmes’s medication. The court said that, without more facts, it could not determine whether Holmes stated a claim under federal law.

City of New York. The court found it unclear what claims Holmes intended to bring against the City. For a Section 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation; allegations that an individual employee acted wrongfully are not enough. The court found that Holmes had not alleged facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused his injuries or that his arrest violated his rights. It nevertheless granted him leave to amend his claims against the City.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Holmes 60 days to file an amended complaint against Acosta and the City of New York. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Holmes must repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that he wants the court to consider. The court directed him to provide facts identifying the relevant people, describing what each defendant did or failed to do, giving approximate dates and locations, describing his injuries, and stating the relief sought.

The court warned that if Holmes did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.