Best v. ACS

Background

Motisla Saholay Best proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to litigate without paying the filing fee. She brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government actors. The initial complaint named the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, the Honorable Clerk Richardson, the Human Resources Administration, the Department of Social Services, and the New York State Department of Labor.

Best later filed an amended complaint naming the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the Human Resources Administration, and the Department of Social Services. She alleged that the defendants violated rights relating to a private or rental agreement or habitual living space through homeless services. She said the events occurred in Nassau, Queens, and New York Counties from October 2013 through the present. The court found that the allegations did not make clear what happened or who could be held responsible. Best sought $1,000 per week for 156 weeks and continuing, described as out-of-pocket expenses of homelessness.

Orders to Amend

On June 26, 2023, the court directed Best to file a second amended complaint. It identified several problems: the pleading lacked a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief; § 1983 claims could not be asserted against the named city agencies; claims against New York City would require facts suggesting that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation; some claims appeared untimely; and the court might not be the proper venue for claims arising in Queens and Nassau Counties.

Best did not file the required second amended complaint. Instead, she submitted letters, motions, and numerous documents, including financial statements, tax forms, and medical records. On August 29, 2023, the court ruled that these submissions were not a second amended complaint, denied her request for injunctive relief, and granted her an extension until October 16, 2023, to file a compliant pleading. The court again warned that the matter would be dismissed if she did not comply.

Best continued filing materials that did not respond to the order to amend. On October 13, 2023, she requested another 60 days, but the court declined to grant the request because she had not complied with the earlier order or shown good cause for her failure. The opinion also notes that she filed a separate new complaint rather than amending this case.

Ruling

The court dismissed Best’s first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of an action filed without a filing fee when it fails to state a claim for relief. The ruling rested on the pleading’s deficiencies and Best’s failure to file the ordered replacement pleading; the court did not decide the underlying civil-rights allegations.

The court terminated all pending matters, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied Best permission to appeal without paying fees, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.