West v. The City of New York

Background

Helen Elaine West, who was representing herself and proceeding without prepaying filing fees, sued the City of New York; the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development; the New York City Department of Homeless Services; the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; the New York City Human Resources Administration; and Lantern Community Services. She invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.

West alleged that she lost her job as a public school teacher and was later evicted from what she called an “illegal rental.” She alleged that, despite only being asked whether she used drugs during the eviction proceedings, the Housing Court’s internal computer system incorrectly recorded that she had been evicted because of “drug activity.” She also alleged that efforts to obtain help failed because of the label, that housing-related services placed her with people whose conditions did not apply to her, that she was unable to work and had to apply for Social Security benefits, that money was deducted from those benefits because of an alleged duplicate food-stamp payment, and that the Human Resources Administration changed a depression diagnosis without her knowledge. She asserted federal criminal-statute claims, a fair-housing claim, and claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, seeking damages.

Screening and dismissed claims

Because West was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. It explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also noted that a self-represented complaint is read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible.

The court dismissed West’s claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245, as well as any other federal criminal statutes. The court held that a private person cannot initiate a federal criminal prosecution because the decision whether to prosecute belongs to prosecutors. It instructed West not to reassert those claims in an amended complaint.

The court dismissed West’s claims against the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the Department of Homeless Services, and the Human Resources Administration because those agencies generally cannot be sued separately from the City. The dismissal was without prejudice to bringing those claims against the City of New York. The court stated that the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene could be sued in its own name under New York City law.

Claims against the City and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

The court construed West’s Fourteenth Amendment claims against the City and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits claims against state actors for violating federal rights. For a claim against a municipality or municipal entity, a plaintiff must allege that a policy, custom, or practice of the entity caused the constitutional violation; allegations that an employee acted wrongfully are not enough by themselves.

The court found that West had not identified a City or Department of Health and Mental Hygiene policy, custom, or practice that caused a violation of her rights. Her general allegations about corruption and misuse of funds were insufficient. The court explained that an amended complaint would need to describe how either entity’s own policy, custom, or practice caused the violation. If West sued individual employees, she would need to identify what each person did or failed to do.

Housing Court record

The court treated the alleged erroneous Housing Court notation as potentially involving procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. It explained that the Housing Court is part of the New York State Unified Court System and is protected by state sovereign immunity from damages claims in federal court. West had requested only damages.

The court also concluded that the allegations did not state a procedural-due-process claim because available state-court remedies could have addressed an unauthorized record error after it occurred. The opinion identified a motion in the Housing Court proceedings or a state-court proceeding under Article 78 as possible remedies. West had not expressly pleaded a state-law claim concerning the notation, and the court cautioned that any such claim could face a timeliness problem based on her statement that the harm had continued for 12 years.

Lantern Community Services

The court stated that Lantern Community Services was a private entity, not a government entity, and that private conduct generally is not actionable under Section 1983. Public funding or government regulation alone does not convert a private entity’s conduct into government action. The court found that West alleged no facts about what Lantern did or failed to do. If she named Lantern in an amended complaint, she would need to identify its conduct and the legal claim based on that conduct.

Social Security and fair-housing claims

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review West’s claim about deductions from her Social Security benefits because she first had to pursue administrative proceedings with the Social Security Administration and obtain a final decision before seeking review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The court said that West’s reference to “rights to fair housing” might be understood as invoking the Fair Housing Act. It found, however, that she had not alleged facts showing that any defendant violated that law. An amended Fair Housing Act claim would need to identify the defendant and explain what occurred that violated West’s rights.

Diversity jurisdiction and disposition

The court found that West had not adequately established diversity jurisdiction. Although she gave an Alabama mailing address, she had not alleged enough facts to show that Alabama was her domicile—that is, her fixed home and intention to remain there—or to establish the citizenship of all parties. Any amended complaint invoking diversity jurisdiction would also need to identify the state-law claims and the conduct by each defendant that allegedly violated state law.

The court granted West leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so West would need to repeat any facts or claims she wanted the court to consider. The court directed her to file it with the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-2256. No summons would issue at that time. If she failed to amend on time without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.