Muzumala v. The City of New York

Background

Jacob Muzumala proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying the filing fee. He filed a second amended complaint after the court had previously identified defects in his earlier complaint and directed him to amend.

Muzumala alleged that federal agents and private individuals had stalked and harassed him and sought his deportation. The court’s earlier order directed him not to assert claims concerning those federal actors because related cases were pending. In this action, his allegations focused primarily on his experiences in New York City’s homeless shelter system after he returned to New York City in November 2021.

He alleged that his privacy and due-process rights were violated; that he experienced poor living conditions, including exposure to secondhand tobacco and crack-cocaine smoke; that he was housed with people who used substances or had mental illness; that his property was taken; and that he was retaliated against after complaining. He also alleged that Dr. Susan Brady misdiagnosed him with schizophrenia and that a shelter peace officer required him to be recorded on a body camera while preparing an incident report. He sought declaratory relief, court orders, and money damages.

Section 1983 claims

The court dismissed Muzumala’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The court found that he had not shown that the private defendants acted under government authority, that any individual defendant was personally involved in violating his constitutional rights, or that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation.

The court also held that the alleged shelter conditions did not state a constitutional claim. It explained that, under the circumstances alleged, the Constitution did not impose a duty of care because Muzumala was not held in the shelters against his will and was free to leave them. The Section 1983 claims were therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims

Muzumala alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The court treated the two statutes alike for purposes of this order. It assumed, without deciding, that Muzumala was disabled within the meaning of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and it also assumed that the Rehabilitation Act applied to the shelters, even though the complaint did not allege that the shelters received federal funding.

The court found that the alleged facts did not show that any defendant discriminated against Muzumala because of a disability or perceived disability, retaliated against him for protected activity, or denied him a reasonable accommodation. The allegations described difficult shelter conditions and transfers between facilities, including transfers sometimes requested by Muzumala, but did not show that he was denied services available to other residents because of a disability or perceived disability. These claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

State-law claims and further amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Muzumala may have been asserting.

The court also denied further leave to amend. It explained that Muzumala had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and that the defects in the second amended complaint could not be cured by another amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Muzumala permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.