Bell v. Family Dollar Jane Doe

Background

James Bell, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued Family Dollar Jane Doe. He alleged that on June 12, 2023, he entered the Family Dollar store at 226 Nagle Avenue in Manhattan, where aisles were cluttered with a cart of inventory. He said he could obtain only items that were not obstructed. After he complained to a checkout worker that the aisles should not be obstructed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), he alleged that the worker became offended and told him to leave the store.

Bell’s original complaint sought $20,000 in damages and sensitivity classes for staff. The court treated the complaint as asserting a claim under Title III of the ADA, which covers discrimination in places open to the public, including retail stores.

Earlier opportunity to amend

In an August 7, 2023 order, the court allowed Bell to file an amended complaint to address several deficiencies. The court said he had not alleged that he had a disability covered by the ADA, provided facts suggesting that a disability influenced the defendant’s response, shown that “Family Dollar Jane Doe” was a proper ADA defendant, or requested a remedy available under Title III. The court also explained that damages were not available under Title III of the ADA.

Amended complaint and analysis

Bell filed an amended complaint on August 18, 2023. The court found it virtually identical to the original. It added no facts supporting an inference that a defendant discriminated against Bell or failed to reasonably accommodate him because of a disability. He again named “Family Dollar Store Jane” as the only defendant and again sought damages. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in the earlier order and therefore failed to state an ADA claim.

Ruling

The court denied further permission to amend. It explained that although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to correct a defective complaint, another opportunity may be denied when the plaintiff already amended and failed to cure the defects. The court determined that the defects did not appear curable through another amendment.

The court dismissed Bell’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bell fee-free status for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The clerk was directed to enter judgment.