Bethea v. NYCHA Law Department
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Bethea v. NYCHA Law Department, Judge Swain dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and declined jurisdiction over possible state-law claims.
Elaine Williams Bethea’s federal Fair Housing Act and constitutional housing-condition claims were dismissed; any state-law claims were not considered, and further amendment was denied.
What happened
In Bethea v. NYCHA Law Department, Elaine Williams Bethea alleged that NYCHA gave her a one-bedroom apartment instead of a promised two-bedroom apartment in 2001 and that her apartment had unsafe conditions. She also alleged that two-bedroom apartments were given to Spanish-speaking people, but she did not identify her own race or ethnicity.
The court found that the amended complaint did not provide facts showing race discrimination or other conduct covered by the Fair Housing Act. It also dismissed any constitutional housing-condition claims under Section 1983 because the court had already ruled that there is no constitutional right to safe or adequate housing. The court declined to consider any state-law claims and did not allow another amendment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, denied fee-free appeal status, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Bethea v. NYCHA Law Department · No. 1:23-cv-00803
- Laura Swain
- June 12, 2023
Background
Elaine Williams Bethea proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She sued the NYCHA Law Department, NYCHA Applications and Tenancy Administration Department, and NYCHA Fulton Houses. She alleged that in 2001 she was selected for a two-bedroom apartment but was instead placed in a one-bedroom apartment, where she continued to live. She also alleged that her apartment had mold, mildew, leaking water, poor air quality, and other unfavorable conditions. In the amended complaint, she alleged that two-bedroom apartments were available but were given to her “Spanish speaking brothers and sisters.” She did not state her race or ethnicity.
Earlier dismissal and amended complaint
The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed Bethea to amend to try to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act. The court had explained that the original complaint did not allege facts showing race discrimination, an exercise of rights under the Fair Housing Act, or coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference because of race. The court also instructed her to address the timing of the alleged discrimination because the apartment decision occurred in 2001.
Bethea’s amended complaint largely repeated the earlier allegations and stated that the events occurred in May 2001. She attached medical records, work orders, communications with NYCHA about leaks, mold, and air quality, and documents concerning the availability of a two-bedroom apartment.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the amended complaint still failed to state a Fair Housing Act claim because it did not allege facts suggesting that the defendants discriminated against Bethea based on race, that she exercised rights under the Act, or that the defendants coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with her exercise of those rights because of race.
The court also dismissed any attempt to replead constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning housing conditions. The court stated that Bethea had not been given permission to replead those claims and dismissed them for the reasons stated in its earlier order, including that there is no constitutional right to safe or adequate housing.
Disposition
The court dismissed the amended complaint and the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims because it had dismissed all claims within its original federal jurisdiction. The court denied further leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by another amendment. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.