Stone v. City of New York

Background

John Stone, who was representing himself, sued the City of New York; Mayor Eric Adams; Comptroller Brad Lander; Department of Homeless Services administrator Joslyn Carter; Project Renewal CEO Eric Rosenbaum; and US Renaissance Homeless Shelter Services. He alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. He also referred to supposed rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, human-rights laws, and a “COVID Act.” The court also understood the complaint to assert retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by state actors.

Stone alleged that he had an unspecified mental illness and chronic asthma and lived in homeless shelters. He described inadequate shower facilities, a lack of COVID-19 protocols, alleged toxic air from asbestos and construction, and a waterbug infestation. He said he complained to shelter and city officials, was threatened after posting shelter photographs on social media, was transferred to another shelter, and was physically assaulted twice outside that shelter. He sought $10 million in damages.

Court’s analysis

Because Stone had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or directed against an immune defendant. It also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

For the Section 1983 claims, the court held that Stone did not allege personal involvement by Adams, DSS Commissioner Gary Jenkins, Carter, or Lander. Merely notifying officials about a problem was not enough. The court also held that Stone did not allege facts showing that Rosenbaum or US Renaissance, which the opinion treated as private actors, acted under state authority. Receiving public funds or operating a shelter did not by itself establish state action. Stone also did not allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the claimed constitutional violations, so he failed to state a Section 1983 claim against the City.

As to First Amendment retaliation, the court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Stone’s advocacy about shelter conditions could be protected speech, that the alleged retaliation was connected to that speech, and that it chilled his speech. But the complaint identified only unspecified Project Renewal staff as the retaliators and did not allege that they were state actors. The court granted leave to amend so Stone could identify state-actor defendants and provide facts about the protected speech, causation, and chilling effect.

The court also held that Section 1983 claims based on the shelter conditions failed because there is no federal constitutional right to housing or to placement in a shelter of a particular quality. It therefore dismissed those shelter-condition claims for failure to state a claim.

For the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Fair Housing Act retaliation claims, the court explained that a plaintiff generally must allege protected activity, the defendants’ knowledge, adverse action, and a connection between the protected activity and adverse action. Individuals cannot be held liable for retaliation under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. Although the Fair Housing Act can allow individual liability, Stone did not identify any named defendant who retaliated against him. The court also found that complaints about general shelter conditions did not show that Stone was protesting disability discrimination. The court granted leave to amend these claims. It stated that an amended Rehabilitation Act claim would also need facts showing that the defendant received federal funding.

The court dismissed the HIPAA claims because HIPAA does not provide a private right of action. It stated that if Stone failed to state a federal claim in an amended complaint, the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims; those claims would then be dismissed without prejudice to pursuing them in an appropriate state court.

Disposition

The court granted Stone 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint, identify the relevant people and their actions, describe when and where events occurred, explain his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court warned that failure to amend on time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal 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 Stone permission to appeal without prepaying fees.