Holmes v. The City of New York

Background

Benjiman Holmes filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset. He alleged that he was attacked at a facility operated by the Neighborhood Association for Inter-Cultural Affairs (NAICA), that Anthony Acosta was “behind it” or “in charge,” and that he was injured. Holmes also previously alleged that Acosta withheld his medication, that he was arrested without cause, and that the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) failed to place him in a protective location or find him an apartment.

The court had previously dismissed Holmes’s claims against NAICA and allowed him to amend his claims against Acosta and the City of New York. In the amended complaint, Holmes repeated the allegations about the attack but did not include facts about the alleged medication withholding. He named the City of New York, DHS, and Acosta as defendants.

Legal standard

Because Holmes was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked authority to exercise jurisdiction. It considered the complaint liberally because Holmes was representing himself.

Claims against the City of New York

The court dismissed the claims against the City because Holmes did not allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. The court also explained that the Constitution does not guarantee access to housing of a particular quality or placement in a particular type of shelter. Holmes did not repeat his housing allegations in the amended complaint, and the court stated that those allegations would not have stated a claim against the City even if he had repeated them.

Claims against the Department of Homeless Services

The court dismissed the claims against DHS under New York City Charter section 396, which generally requires actions against a city agency to be brought in the name of the City of New York rather than the agency itself. The court noted that it ordinarily would construe such claims against the City, but the City was already named as a defendant and the claims against it were dismissed.

Claims against Anthony Acosta

The court dismissed the claims against Acosta for failure to state a claim. It treated Acosta as a private individual and concluded that Holmes had not alleged facts showing that Acosta acted under government authority, a requirement for a claim under Section 1983, the federal law that allows certain constitutional-rights claims against persons acting for the government.

The court explained that providing housing is not a function reserved exclusively to the government and that receiving public funds does not by itself make private conduct government conduct. Holmes’s allegations concerned Acosta’s alleged role at a NAICA-operated facility, but they did not establish the required government connection. Holmes also failed to provide facts supporting the medication-withholding allegation for which the court had previously allowed him to amend.

Further amendment and state-law claims

The court denied further permission to amend. It reasoned that Holmes had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects and that another amendment could not cure them.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its discretionary authority over related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Holmes might have intended to assert.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Holmes fee-free appeal status.