Burke v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

Background

Brian Burke, proceeding without a lawyer, asserted federal and state claims against more than a dozen defendants. The claims remaining at issue in this order were against Housing & Services, Inc.; Kenmore Housing Development Fund Corporation; Kenmore Housing Corporation; and Kenmore Associates, L.P., collectively called the Kenmore Defendants. The Kenmore Defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact important to the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Burke’s allegations focused mainly on two events. First, he alleged that a visit by social workers led to a mental-health report falsely stating that he had a history of psychosis and delusions, and that this information was shared with his employer. Second, he alleged that the Kenmore Defendants improperly involved police and emergency personnel in efforts to replace a defective smoke detector in his apartment. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended granting summary judgment to the Kenmore Defendants. Burke objected to that recommendation and to parts of the magistrate judge’s factual description.

Court’s analysis

The court overruled Burke’s factual objections. It agreed that his amended complaint was difficult to understand, that his psychologist’s letter merely repeated Burke’s unsupported belief that information might have been shared with his employer, and that the administrative-hearing transcript did not establish fraud or another racketeering offense. The court also found no error in the magistrate judge’s refusal to reopen discovery.

For Burke’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court explained that he had to show that the Kenmore Defendants acted under state authority and violated a constitutional or federal legal right. The court found no evidence that a state actor participated in the alleged sharing of Burke’s medical information, encouraged that conduct, or was sufficiently connected to the conduct that allegedly injured him. It therefore adopted the recommendation to grant summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.

For the civil racketeering claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the court held that Burke had not produced evidence of the required predicate offenses. It found that the alleged medical-information disclosures were unsupported by evidence, burglary was not a listed racketeering predicate, and the building-code violations and alleged obstruction of a New York City administrative proceeding did not qualify as the required offenses. The court also found no evidence that alleged burglaries occurred or were committed by the Kenmore Defendants. It therefore adopted the recommendation to grant summary judgment on the racketeering claim.

The court separately reviewed, for clear error, recommendations concerning Burke’s False Claims Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act claims because Burke had not objected to those recommendations. It agreed that a person representing himself cannot bring a False Claims Act qui tam claim, that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act does not provide a private lawsuit for the alleged disclosure, and that Burke had not shown that the Kenmore was a place of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court also agreed that the remaining state-law claims should not be heard under supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear related state claims in some circumstances.

Disposition

Judge Gardephe overruled Burke’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the Kenmore Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Burke’s § 1983, racketeering, False Claims Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burke’s state-law claims. Because the court stated that all claims against named defendants had been dismissed, it directed the clerk to close the case.