Avila v. Sun River Health, Inc.

Background

Jimmy Avila, who is representing himself, sued Sun River Health, Inc., Melissa Shoupe, and Lester. He alleged that the defendants refused to provide required medical accommodations and retaliated against him for reporting alleged illegal acts to colleagues, agencies, and local authorities. He sought declaratory relief, an injunction, and unspecified monetary damages.

Avila relied on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2671, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law. He based his allegations in part on a March 22, 2020, letter from Ted Martynowicz, D.O., which recommended a safety transfer from a basic apartment to a one-bedroom apartment at an alternate location. Avila alleged that the defendants failed to ensure that he received that transfer.

Court’s Analysis

Because Avila had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Screening requires dismissal of an eligible complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. At the same time, the court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while still requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

The court explained that the ADA has separate provisions covering employment, public entities, and public accommodations. It focused on the ADA’s public-entity provision and the Rehabilitation Act. To state a claim under those provisions, Avila had to allege facts showing that he had a disability, that the defendants were covered by the relevant laws, and that he was denied access to or discriminated against in connection with the defendants’ services, programs, or activities because of his disability.

The court said that Avila had not fully explained his disability. Even assuming for purposes of the order that he had a qualifying disability and that the statutes applied, the court found that he alleged no facts showing that the defendants denied him access to their services or discriminated against him because of his disability. The court therefore found that the complaint did not state an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim as pleaded.

Preliminary Injunction

Avila also requested a preliminary injunction, which is an order issued before final judgment to prevent likely immediate harm or preserve the situation during the case. The court held that Avila had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting that relief. It denied the request for a preliminary injunction without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court granted Avila leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including the relevant people and their titles, what each defendant did or failed to do, approximate dates and locations, Avila’s injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Avila wants to retain must be repeated.

The court stated that if Avila does not comply within the permitted time and cannot show good cause, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not state a final merits determination on whether the alleged housing conduct violated the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.