Harris v. CYA Management

Background

Laquan Devota Harris, appearing without a lawyer, sued CYA Management, Juan, Luis Baptist, Melissa, Sharda, and Ms. Nicovick. The complaint alleged that several “home invasions” occurred in Harris’s apartment between 2021 and 2023. Harris alleged that the apartment door was broken open and left unrepaired, that building management ignored his complaints and requests for camera footage, and that people entered the apartment and assaulted him. He alleged that he suffered facial fractures requiring surgery. He sought an order requiring action and money damages.

Federal claims

The court construed Harris’s constitutional allegations, including his Fourth Amendment claim, as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute requires a plaintiff to allege both a violation of a federal right and action under color of state law—that is, action by a state actor or by someone acting through state authority.

The court held that Harris did not state a Section 1983 claim because CYA Management, the landlord, and the other named defendants were private parties. The complaint did not allege that any defendant worked for a state or other government body. The court also explained that landlord-tenant disputes generally do not create federal-question jurisdiction and that the Constitution does not guarantee housing of a particular quality.

State-law claims and amendment

Although Harris did not expressly assert state-law claims, the court considered whether his complaint could be read to include them. The court found that he had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction, including the required citizenship differences and jurisdictional amount. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court declined to give Harris permission to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a case filed without prepaying fees when it fails to state a claim. The court terminated all other pending matters and directed the clerk to enter judgment. It warned Harris that continued frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise nonmeritorious litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without prior permission. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Harris permission to appeal without paying fees.