Best v. ACS

Background

Motisla Saholay Best appeared without a lawyer and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against a person acting under state law for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. Her operative amended complaint named the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Human Resources Administration, and the New York City Department of Social Services as defendants.

Best alleged that she was harmed by inequality and financial bias and was denied housing, rental, or other housing assistance from October 2013 through March 17, 2020. She sought $1,000 per week for out-of-pocket expenses related to homelessness. The complaint also included attachments from court proceedings, a document concerning an estate, and payroll records. Best later submitted letters and attachments requesting judicial intervention and money for immediate housing for her children.

Court’s analysis

Because Best had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because the defendant was immune from monetary relief. It also considered whether the court had authority over the claims and whether the complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement of the facts supporting relief.

The court held that New York City agencies are not entities that can generally be sued separately. It explained that Best could instead seek to sue the City of New York, but a claim against the City would require facts showing both a city policy, custom, or practice and that the policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. The amended complaint did not provide those facts.

The court also found that the complaint did not state enough facts to show that Best’s constitutional rights were violated. It noted that the Constitution does not generally guarantee housing benefits or assistance in obtaining housing. The complaint also did not clearly identify what happened, who was involved, when or where the events occurred, or why the events violated federally protected rights. The court found no apparent connection between several attachments and Best’s claims.

The court identified additional concerns about venue and timeliness. Nassau and Queens Counties are in the Eastern District of New York, so the Southern District of New York might not be the proper venue for claims arising there. The court also explained that New York’s three-year limitations period generally applies to § 1983 claims and that claims arising before April 10, 2020, appeared potentially untimely because Best filed this action on April 10, 2023. The court allowed Best to address timeliness in her next complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed Best’s claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Human Resources Administration, and the New York City Department of Social Services under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In light of Best’s stated intention to sue the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City and directed the Clerk of Court to add the City to the caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Best leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The new complaint had to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, state the approximate dates and locations, describe the injuries, and specify the requested relief. It would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. No summons would issue at that time. If Best failed to file the required complaint without showing good cause, the § 1983 claims would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court denied Best’s motion for an order of service without prejudice and directed the Clerk to terminate that motion. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Best permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.