Bethea v. NYCHA Law Department

Background

Elaine Williams Bethea filed the complaint without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the NYCHA Law Department violated her rights through “Discrimination under the Fair Housing policy. Intimidation, Racism.” She alleged that in 2001 she was selected for a two-bedroom apartment at the Robert Fulton Houses but was instead placed in a one-bedroom apartment, where she continued to live with her grandson.

Bethea also referred to the tenant selection and assignment plan and questioned why a waiting-list matter was being offered to her after 21 years. She described mold and mildew, an unpleasant odor, leaking radiator water, unsafe air, brown water from faucets, and medical problems involving herself and her grandson. She did not specify the relief sought.

Legal standards

Because Bethea was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to include enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while reading a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Fair Housing Act claims

The court interpreted Bethea’s references to discrimination, intimidation, and racism as an attempt to bring claims under the Fair Housing Act. That law prohibits discrimination in housing transactions and services based on listed factors, including race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. It also prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with a person’s exercise of rights under the Act.

The court held that Bethea did not allege facts suggesting that the defendant discriminated against her based on race or another prohibited factor. She did not identify her race, allege that she had exercised Fair Housing Act rights, or allege that the defendant retaliated against or intimidated her because she exercised those rights. The court therefore dismissed the Fair Housing Act claims for failure to state a claim.

The court granted Bethea 30 days to file an amended complaint with additional facts that could support a Fair Housing Act claim. It instructed her to identify how a named defendant discriminated against her in housing because of her race and to address the Act’s two-year filing period, including any facts supporting a continuing violation.

Constitutional claims

The court also considered that Bethea might be attempting to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law allowing claims against a person acting under state law for violating federal rights. To the extent she sought to hold the defendant responsible for mold, odors, leaks, brown water, or other inadequate housing conditions, the court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim. The court explained that the Constitution does not provide a general right to adequate or safe housing.

State-law claims and filing instructions

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Bethea might be asserting because it had dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

The court directed that electronic access to the complaint be restricted to case participants because the complaint appeared to disclose a minor child’s full name. It instructed Bethea to use only the child’s initials in any amended complaint. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and therefore had to repeat any facts or claims she wanted the court to consider.

The conclusion states that Bethea had 60 days from the date of the order to submit an amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint” and bearing the docket number. If she did not file within the allowed time or show good cause for an extension, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the federal claims and declining to consider the state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.