Avila v. Acacia Network Inc.

Background

Jimmy Avila, who was representing himself, sued Acacia Network, Inc., Lorraine Coleman, and Bronx Addiction Services Integrated Concepts System, Inc., also known as BASICS. He alleged that the defendants discriminated against him in housing as a qualified person with disabilities and failed to accommodate his medical needs. Avila alleged that, after he provided a letter from a doctor, the defendants refused to transfer him from BASICS to a one-bedroom apartment at another site. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and $500,000 in monetary damages.

The court had previously allowed Avila to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the screening requirements for fee-free cases, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Fair Housing Act claims

The Fair Housing Act prohibits disability discrimination in the rental of a dwelling, the terms or conditions of renting, and the provision of housing-related services. It also requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when an accommodation may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the infection described in the doctor’s letter qualified as a disability under the Act. Even with that assumption, however, the court found that Avila had not alleged facts showing that the requested transfer was likely necessary to give him an equal opportunity to enjoy his housing, that the requested accommodation was reasonable, or that a defendant refused to make it. He also did not allege facts showing that his disability was a motivating factor in any adverse action or that he had been denied an equal opportunity to enjoy his apartment because a reasonable accommodation was denied.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court discussed Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by public entities against qualified individuals with disabilities. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that the defendant is covered by the statute, and that he was denied access to or benefits from the defendant’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against because of his disability.

Again assuming that Avila was a qualified individual with a disability protected by Title II, the court found that he had alleged no facts showing that the defendants denied him an opportunity to participate in or benefit from their services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminated against him because of his disability.

Preliminary injunction

Avila also requested a preliminary injunction, an order issued before final judgment to prevent claimed harm or preserve the situation during the case. The court found that he had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting the request. The court therefore denied the preliminary-injunction request without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Avila was representing himself and might be able to allege additional facts supporting valid claims, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that if Avila failed to amend within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Avila permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not enter a final dismissal of the complaint at that time.