Gonzalez v. Tejada

Background

Omayra Gonzalez, who was representing herself, filed a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction. She named Danci Tejada Jr., the Westchester District Attorney, and Berkshire Hathaway Homeservices as defendants. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Gonzalez alleged that Tejada Jr. stalked and harmed her, that the Westchester District Attorney failed to investigate her complaints, and that Berkshire Hathaway denied her an apartment because her son has autism. She sought $127 billion in damages. The court treated the reference to the “White Plains District Attorney” as referring to the Westchester County District Attorney because the complaint also identified the Westchester District Attorney and the court stated that White Plains does not have a district attorney.

Constitutional claims

The court construed Gonzalez’s references to discrimination and protection as attempts to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Tejada Jr. and Berkshire Hathaway because Gonzalez did not allege that either private party acted under state authority. The court also dismissed the claims against the Westchester District Attorney’s Office. Under New York law, the office is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court therefore considered whether Gonzalez had stated a claim against Westchester County, but found that she did not allege a county policy, practice, or custom that caused a constitutional violation. The court also explained that the Constitution generally does not give individuals an affirmative right to have the government investigate their complaints.

Fair Housing Act claim

The court interpreted Gonzalez’s allegation about being denied an apartment because of her son’s autism as a possible claim under the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits certain discrimination in housing, including disability discrimination. The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to state that claim. It did not explain, for example, where or when Gonzalez applied for the apartment or why she believed her son’s autism motivated Berkshire Hathaway’s decision.

The court assumed for purposes of the order that Gonzalez was asserting her own Fair Housing Act claim, rather than bringing a claim on behalf of her son. It noted that a nonlawyer parent ordinarily cannot represent a child in federal court without a lawyer.

State-law claims and leave to amend

Because the court dismissed the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretion to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Gonzalez may have intended to assert.

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It granted Gonzalez 30 days to file an amended complaint stating only a Fair Housing Act claim against Berkshire Hathaway. The amended complaint must include facts plausibly suggesting that her son has a disability under the Act and that the disability was a motivating factor in Berkshire Hathaway’s decision. Any additional claims would be summarily dismissed.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to keep the action open until judgment is entered. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.