Levine v. Project Renewal

Background

Morris Glen Levine, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Project Renewal. He alleged that he was staying at Anna’s Place, a men’s homeless shelter operated by Project Renewal, beginning January 18, 2024. Levine alleged that he had severe health issues, including asthma and Crohn’s disease; that he was supposed to be in a medical dorm and a nonsmoking facility; and that he needed a special diet. He also alleged that other clients smoked cigarettes and “K2,” that staff said they could not control the other clients, that staff would not let him bring in special food, and that staff gave him a hard time for carrying Narcan and required him to pass through metal detectors. He sought $8,000 for pain, suffering, and aggravation.

The court had previously allowed Levine to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring screening of such complaints. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought unavailable monetary relief, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. It also said that pleadings filed without a lawyer would be read liberally but still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Americans with Disabilities Act

The court assumed for purposes of the order that Project Renewal’s shelter qualified as a public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title III generally requires private entities covered by the law to make reasonable changes to policies, practices, or procedures when those changes are necessary for a person with a disability.

The court construed Levine’s allegations as asserting a failure-to-accommodate claim. It explained that such a claim requires facts showing that the plaintiff has a disability known to the defendant, that an accommodation was necessary, and that the defendant refused it. The court also held that private individuals cannot obtain money damages under Title III. Because Levine requested only money damages and did not request an order requiring Project Renewal to change its practices, he failed to state a Title III claim on the relief he sought.

The court further stated that the allegations would be insufficient even if Levine had requested an injunction. The complaint did not allege that Project Renewal staff knew about his asthma or Crohn’s disease, or that he had requested changes to the shelter’s rules because of those conditions. The court assumed that the illnesses could qualify as disabilities for purposes of the order, but noted that Levine had not alleged facts showing that they substantially limited major life activities. The court granted leave to replead the ADA claim if Levine sought only injunctive relief and supplied facts addressing the required elements.

Rehabilitation Act

The Rehabilitation Act applies to programs receiving federal financial assistance and prohibits discrimination solely because of disability. The court found that Levine did not allege that Project Renewal received federal funding. It also found that, because Levine sought damages, he needed to allege intentional discrimination, and he had not alleged facts suggesting that a Project Renewal policymaker acted with deliberate indifference to the likelihood of violating federally protected rights. The court additionally found that Levine had not alleged that staff knew of his disabilities or that he requested accommodations because of them.

The court dismissed Levine’s Rehabilitation Act claims for failure to state a claim, with leave to replead.

Fair Housing Act

The court assumed for purposes of the order that Anna’s Place might qualify as a dwelling covered by the Fair Housing Act. A failure-to-accommodate claim under that law requires facts showing a qualifying disability, the defendant’s knowledge of it, the necessity of an accommodation to provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and the defendant’s refusal to make the accommodation.

The court found that Levine had not alleged facts showing that Project Renewal knew of his disability or that an accommodation was necessary. It dismissed the Fair Housing Act claims for failure to state a claim, with leave to replead.

Civil-rights claims

The court considered whether the complaint could assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims against a person acting under state authority who violates federal rights. The court described Project Renewal as a private entity and found that Levine had not alleged that it was part of a federal, state, or local government agency. He also had not alleged state involvement in the shelter’s enforcement of smoking or food rules. The court further stated that providing housing to homeless people is not an exclusive government function. Because Levine had not alleged facts showing that Project Renewal was acting under state authority, he could not state a § 1983 claim against it.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because the court believed Levine might be able to allege additional facts supporting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, or the Fair Housing Act, it granted him leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The conclusion directs Levine to submit it within 60 days and states that failure to do so, absent good cause, will result in dismissal of the federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Earlier in the order, however, the court stated that Levine had 30 days to amend. No summons would issue at that time. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.