Sullivan v. City of New York

Background

Dante Malik Sullivan proceeded without a lawyer and sued the City of New York, several city officials, Project Renewal personnel, and an Allied Universal Security guard. He alleged that defendants retaliated against him after he complained about conditions and his mental safety at the Fort Washington M.I.C.A. shelter, which Project Renewal operated. He asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and what the court construed as a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also referred to alleged violations of his “HIPPA Rights, Human Rights, [and] COVID19 Rights.”

Sullivan alleged that residents were removed from sleeping areas in the morning, that he encountered toxic fumes and poor shower conditions, and that shelter staff insulted or profiled residents. He alleged that staff called the police after he complained and told police that he was smoking K2. He also alleged that he was arrested twice, suffered physical and emotional harms, and lost employment and wages. He sought $5 million in damages.

Screening standard

Because Sullivan was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible and identify how each defendant was personally involved.

Section 1983 and First Amendment claims

The court held that Sullivan did not state a Section 1983 claim against Mayor Eric Adams, DSS Commissioner Gary Jenkins, DHS Administrator Joslyn Carter, or Comptroller Brad Lander because he alleged no facts showing their direct and personal involvement.

The court also held that Sullivan did not state a Section 1983 claim against Project Renewal CEO Eric Rosenbaum or Allied Universal Security guard Daniel Suarez. They were described as private parties, and Sullivan did not allege facts showing that their conduct was fairly attributable to the state. The court explained that operating or funding a shelter does not, by itself, turn private conduct into state action. Sullivan also failed to allege that the City of New York itself had a policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation.

As to First Amendment retaliation, the court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Sullivan’s advocacy about shelter conditions might be protected, that the alleged actions might have been caused by that advocacy, and that the actions might have discouraged him from exercising his rights. But the complaint repeatedly referred only to unspecified “staff” at Project Renewal, without identifying defendants who could be sued under Section 1983 or alleging facts showing that those individuals were state actors. The court granted leave to amend this claim by identifying the responsible individuals and providing facts about the protected speech, the alleged retaliation, and how the retaliation discouraged further speech.

The court dismissed Sullivan’s Section 1983 claims based on shelter conditions because federal law does not create a constitutional right to housing or to housing of a particular quality. The court concluded that the alleged undesirable conditions did not state a federal due-process claim.

ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Fair Housing Act claims

The court held that individuals cannot be personally liable for retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act. Sullivan therefore failed to state retaliation claims under those laws against the individually named defendants.

The court explained that the Fair Housing Act can allow individual liability, but Sullivan did not identify any named defendant who allegedly retaliated against him. He alleged that unspecified Project Renewal staff took the retaliatory actions.

The court also found that Sullivan had not alleged protected activity under the disability and housing laws. His allegations concerned general shelter conditions, but he did not allege that he complained about discrimination based on disability, race, or another protected characteristic. The court nevertheless granted leave to amend these claims. It directed Sullivan to identify the responsible entity, such as the shelter, and allege facts showing that defendants acted because he complained about or opposed protected discrimination. For a Rehabilitation Act claim, he also had to allege that the defendant received federal funding.

HIPAA claims

The court understood Sullivan’s reference to “HIPPA” as a reference to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, commonly called HIPAA. It dismissed the HIPAA claims because that statute does not provide a private right of action, meaning an individual cannot use it to bring this type of lawsuit directly.

Order and disposition

The court granted Sullivan 60 days to file an amended complaint limited to possible First Amendment, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Fair Housing Act retaliation claims. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint rather than supplement it and had to identify the relevant defendants, facts, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court declined to grant leave to amend the remaining claims because it found amendment would be futile.

The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Sullivan fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.