West v. The City of New York

Background

Helen Elaine West, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, filed an amended complaint against the City of New York, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), and thirteen individuals associated with shelters or social-services agencies. She alleged that events from 2011 through 2021 included improper shelter placement, inadequate assistance, inaccurate records, discrimination, housing-related misrepresentations, and mistreatment. She sought correction of her reputation and $10 million for lost wages, lost property, and other suffering.

West had previously filed a related action involving her experiences in New York City shelters beginning in 2011. That earlier action was dismissed for failure to state a claim after she did not file an amended complaint. In this case, the court had already given West an opportunity to amend her original complaint.

Federal claims against the City

The court applied claim preclusion, also called res judicata. This rule generally prevents a party from bringing a later case based on the same facts and parties when the earlier case ended in a final judgment on the merits. The court held that the earlier dismissal for failure to state a claim was a judgment on the merits for this purpose. It therefore held that West’s claims against the City, and claims against city employees in their official capacities, based on facts occurring before the earlier judgment were barred by claim preclusion.

The court separately considered whether West had stated claims based on events after the earlier judgment. For a civil-rights claim against a municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation. The court held that West’s allegations about failing to regulate basement apartments, not providing unspecified reasonable accommodations, hiring underqualified or inadequately trained workers, and not allowing people to choose their shelters did not meet that requirement. The court also stated that the allegations about the basement apartment appeared time-barred and did not identify a constitutional right, and that there is no constitutional right to placement in a particular type of shelter.

The court therefore dismissed West’s claims against the City based on claim preclusion and failure to state a claim.

Claims against DOHMH

West alleged that DOHMH did not require shelters to explain that residents would participate in case-management programs and that the housing would not be like ordinary housing. The court held that this allegation did not identify a violation of the Constitution or federal law. It dismissed the Section 1983 claims against DOHMH for failure to state a claim.

Claims against individual defendants

West sued employees of private organizations providing housing and social services. The court held that the complaint did not allege facts showing that these private individuals acted under color of state law, meaning that their conduct was fairly attributable to the government. It therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Brian Dickerson, Diana Santos, Amy Berg, Cory Hioska, Lindsay Lambert, Stephanie Purnell, Tanya Cortes, Andrei Zatalokin, “Mr. Rogers,” and Naomi Kimmel for failure to state a claim.

West also sued former employees of the New York City Department of Homeless Services, alleging that Susan Nayowith withheld help and that George Rizzo and Harry Kennedy did not help when she complained about a shelter. The court relied on the general rule that the Constitution does not require the government to protect an individual from harm or provide assistance. It concluded that West’s allegations did not show either recognized exception: that the government had forcibly taken her into custody or had prevented her from protecting herself. The court therefore held that these allegations also failed to state a Section 1983 claim.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims. The court also held that West had not adequately established diversity jurisdiction. Although she alleged that she was an Alabama citizen, she did not allege where the defendants were domiciled when the action began. The court therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court declined to give West another opportunity to amend because she had already filed two suits arising from her shelter experiences and had been given opportunities to amend in both. The court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and claim preclusion, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.