Perez Padilla v. Department of Social Service Housing Authorities

Background

Lourdes Candita Perez Padilla filed a 15-page complaint and later filed four letters repeating much of the same information. She said that events underlying her claims occurred in Yonkers, New York, between 2015 and 2022, and she sought monetary damages. She was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to file without paying court fees in advance.

The complaint named the Department of Social Service Housing Authorities and many other defendants, including private health-care facilities, a construction company, an attorney, a pharmacy, medical providers, a supermarket, and private individuals. Perez Padilla also sought damages from Yaxaira Bermeo based on alleged sexual harassment of Perez Padilla's husband.

Court's analysis

When a person is allowed to file without prepaying fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or is filed in a case over which the court lacks authority. The court must also read a self-represented person's allegations generously, but the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement of facts showing a plausible entitlement to relief.

Judge Swain concluded that the complaint violated that requirement because it was not short and plain and, despite its extensive information, did not allow the court to determine which claims Perez Padilla was asserting against each defendant. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The court treated Perez Padilla's allegations that defendants violated her rights as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for the state. The court held that the complaint did not allege that the listed private defendants acted for the state or another government body. It also stated that the claims against the many defendants did not appear to be properly joined because unrelated claims against different defendants generally cannot be combined in one action.

The court ruled that Perez Padilla could not represent her husband's interests because she was not a lawyer. It dismissed without prejudice any claims she sought to bring on her husband's behalf. It separately stated that those claims, along with the Section 1983 claims against the listed private defendants, could not be cured by amendment.

Ruling and next steps

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It dismissed all Section 1983 claims against Yaxaira Bermeo, the identified construction-company defendants and individuals, Roger Guarda, Robert Jacobson, Dr. Dent, St. Joseph's Hospital, Louis Albano, Mary Alice Brady, Cherry Valley Supermarket, Nick Sullo, Saint Vincent's Hospital, and Dr. Daniel Neghassi, as listed in the order.

The court granted Perez Padilla leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amendment was limited to providing facts supporting valid claims against the Department of Social Services and its employees, and the Municipal Housing Authority for the City of Yonkers and its employees. It also had to show that the claims against those defendants were properly joined. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Perez Padilla wanted the court to consider had to be repeated.

The court did not decide whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in a future amended complaint. It stated that, if Perez Padilla did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court would enter judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a federal claim and decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. The court kept the action open until judgment and denied fee-free status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.