Gonzalez v. Tejada

Background

Omayra Gonzalez brought the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying court fees. She named Danci Tejada Jr., the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, and Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices as defendants. She alleged that Tejada stalked and threatened her, that the District Attorney’s Office declined to investigate her reports, and that Berkshire Hathaway denied her an apartment because her son has autism.

The court had previously dismissed Gonzalez’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Tejada and Berkshire Hathaway because they were private parties and therefore could not be held liable under that statute. The court treated the claims against the District Attorney’s Office as claims against Westchester County and dismissed them for failure to state a claim. It also determined that Gonzalez’s allegation about the apartment could be an attempt to bring a discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act, but found the allegation too limited to state that claim. The court allowed her to amend only that claim and instructed her to provide facts plausibly showing that her son had a disability covered by the Fair Housing Act and that the disability motivated Berkshire Hathaway’s decision.

Amended Complaint

Gonzalez’s amended complaint was virtually identical to the original. She again alleged that Tejada threatened her and that the District Attorney declined to investigate. She again alleged that Berkshire Hathaway “declined to rent [her] the apartment because [her] son [has] Autism” and that the company promised to help her obtain a home and pay a fee but did not do so.

The court held that the amended complaint did not cure the defects identified in its earlier order. Gonzalez did not add facts showing that her son’s autism qualified as a disability under the Fair Housing Act or that the disability was a motivating factor in Berkshire Hathaway’s decision. Because she had already received an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured with another amendment, the court declined to grant another opportunity to amend.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The order does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—meaning authority to decide related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Gonzalez may have been asserting. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.