Perez Padilla v. Department of Social Service Housing Authorities

Background

Lourdes Candita Perez Padilla, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated her rights. The court had previously dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed her to file an amended complaint limited to providing facts supporting claims against the Department of Social Services and its employees, the Municipal Housing Authority for the City of Yonkers and its employees, and the required connection among those claims.

Perez Padilla filed an amended complaint on April 27, 2023. She also sent letters between April 28, 2023, and October 11, 2023, requesting money, shelter, and assistance for herself, her daughter, and her grandchildren.

Court’s analysis

Because Perez Padilla was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.

The court explained that it was required to read a self-represented person’s complaint generously, but the complaint still had to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by providing a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not address the problems identified in the earlier order. It repeated many allegations and named many defendants whose claims had already been dismissed. It did not make clear what claims Perez Padilla was asserting against each defendant, asserted claims on behalf of her husband without supporting facts, alleged that private defendants violated her rights without sufficient factual support, and did not show that the claims were properly joined in one case.

Disposition

The court dismissed Perez Padilla’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because no valid federal claims remained, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims. The court denied further leave to amend because Perez Padilla had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and had not cured its deficiencies.

The court denied as moot her requests for money, shelter, and assistance for her daughter and grandchildren. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied her status allowing her to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment, and all other matters were terminated. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.