Brown v. NYCHA Development

Background

Cynthia Brown, appearing without a lawyer and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued NYCHA Development. Brown alleged that she lived in a NYCHA-managed apartment building and that a male NYCHA employee sexually assaulted her on May 3, 2023. She alleged that the employee had previously visited her apartment at late hours and made sexual comments. Brown stated that she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, felt unsafe, and could not sleep. She sought $8,000 in damages for her injuries and therapy.

Federal claims

Brown invoked federal-question jurisdiction. Because she sued NYCHA, which the court described as a municipal entity or city agency, the court treated her federal claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under that statute against a municipality requires facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation of constitutional rights. The court found that Brown had not identified any NYCHA policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged harm. It also stated that NYCHA likely could not be held responsible merely for the employee’s alleged sexual misconduct under an employer-liability theory, because such misconduct is generally outside the scope of employment.

The court therefore dismissed Brown’s federal claims and granted her leave to replead facts about what NYCHA did or failed to do that caused the alleged violation of her rights.

State-law claim and jurisdiction

The court treated the alleged sexual assault claim as arising under state law. Federal courts may hear such a claim based on diversity jurisdiction only if the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. Brown sought $8,000, and the complaint indicated that Brown resided in New York and NYCHA was located in New York. The court also said the NYCHA employee presumably resided in New York. It concluded that the parties were not diverse and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the state-law claim. The court expressly offered no opinion about whether Brown could pursue a state-law claim against the individual in state court.

Disposition and amendment

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), while granting Brown 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court instructed Brown to provide facts supporting a federal municipal-liability claim against NYCHA or, if she pursued only state-law claims, facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. It also instructed her to identify the NYCHA employee if she wished to assert claims against that person, provide required identifying and address information, describe the events and injuries, and state the relief requested.

The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on April 15, 2024.