Simon v. Inwood Robin House

Background

Barry Simon, who was representing himself, filed the action invoking federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that his right to due process had been violated. He sued Inwood Robin House, which he described as his landlord; Vicky Rodriguez, whom he described as a property manager; Rosemarly Ferrer, whom he described as property management; and “N.Y.C.H.P.D. aka H.U.D. Contact Administrator,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). Simon sought damages and an injunction.

The court understood Simon’s complaint to assert constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims under state law. His allegations appeared to concern efforts to increase his share of rent and the landlord’s failure to repair his apartment, particularly its heat. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Legal standard

Because Simon was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while reading a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Claims against Inwood Robin House, Rodriguez, and Ferrer

A claim under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both a violation of a federal right and action taken under state law. The court explained that private parties generally are not government actors for this purpose. It found that Inwood Robin House, Rodriguez, and Ferrer appeared to be private parties and that Simon alleged no facts showing that they acted as government actors. The court therefore dismissed Simon’s § 1983 claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim.

Claims against HPD and the City of New York

The court held that HPD, as an agency of the City of New York, was not a separate entity that could be sued. It therefore dismissed the claims against HPD for failure to state a claim, but construed those claims as claims against the City of New York.

To state a § 1983 claim against the City, Simon had to allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his constitutional rights. The court found that he had not done so and dismissed the § 1983 claims against the City for failure to state a claim. Because Simon was representing himself, however, the court granted him leave to replead those claims in an amended complaint containing sufficient supporting facts.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the early stage of the case. The court nevertheless granted Simon leave to replead his state-law claims in an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action and dismissed Simon’s § 1983 claims against Inwood Robin House, Rodriguez, Ferrer, HPD, and the City of New York. It granted Simon 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting the specified § 1983 claims against the City and his state-law claims. The court directed the Clerk of Court not to enter judgment dismissing the action at that time because Simon had been given an opportunity to amend. If he did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct entry of judgment dismissing the action.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Simon permission to appeal without prepaying fees.