Avila v. ACACIA Network, Inc.

Background

Jimmy Avila filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. He sued Acacia Network, Inc.; Trevor Griffiths; Aja Douglas; the entity the court understood to be the New York State Office of Mental Health; Kim Benatar; Adult Protective Services; Thomas Glenoy; and 1412 College Avenue, LLC.

Avila asserted disability-discrimination and retaliation claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also asserted constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Avila alleged that he entered into a lease and relocation agreement involving supportive housing. He objected to language stating that he was refusing social services, arguing that the language misrepresented his intentions and interfered with reasonable accommodations. He also alleged that the agreement was presented under duress. In addition, he claimed that defendants retaliated against him for earlier legal activity by including discriminatory terms in the agreement and reporting him to Adult Protective Services. He alleged that Adult Protective Services officials later came to his home and attempted to have him involuntarily hospitalized after he criticized their conduct online.

Screening and duplicative claims

Because Avila was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible.

The court found that Avila appeared to be repeating some claims against Acacia, Douglas, and Griffiths that he had asserted in two earlier related proceedings. It dismissed, without prejudice, the claims in this action that duplicated claims in those pending proceedings.

Fair Housing Act claims

The court assumed for purposes of the order that Avila had a disability covered by the Fair Housing Act. It nevertheless held that he did not allege facts showing that disability was a motivating factor in the challenged conduct by Acacia, 1412 College Avenue, Douglas, or Griffiths. The court dismissed those discrimination claims and granted leave to replead them.

The court also dismissed Avila’s Fair Housing Act retaliation claims. It assumed that he engaged in protected activity and that the defendants knew about it, but found that he had not alleged enough facts showing an adverse action or a causal connection between his earlier legal activity and the challenged conduct. The court granted leave to replead those claims.

Rehabilitation Act claims

The court dismissed Avila’s Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims against Acacia, the New York State Office of Mental Health, the City of New York, and 1412 College Avenue, LLC. Avila did not allege facts showing that the relevant defendants received federal funding, as required for these claims, or that they denied him access to services or discriminated against him because of his disability. The court granted leave to amend.

The court treated the claims against Adult Protective Services as claims against the City of New York because Adult Protective Services is a city agency that cannot generally be sued separately. The court dismissed the Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims because, even assuming federal funding, protected activity, and defendants’ knowledge, Avila had not adequately alleged an adverse action or the required causal connection. The court granted leave to replead those claims against the identified defendants.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court dismissed Avila’s Title II Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination claims against the New York State Office of Mental Health and the City of New York because he had not alleged sufficient facts showing disability discrimination. The court granted leave to amend.

The court also dismissed his Americans with Disabilities Act retaliation claims against those defendants because he had not adequately alleged an adverse action or a causal connection between protected activity and the challenged conduct. The court granted leave to replead those claims.

Constitutional claims under Section 1983

For the claims against the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court held that Avila had not alleged a city policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation. It dismissed those claims and granted leave to amend.

For the claims against Benatar and Glenoy, the court held that Avila had not alleged facts showing their direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. It dismissed those claims and granted leave to amend. The court stated that Avila could identify directly involved individuals by descriptive “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” names if he did not know their identities, but that doing so would not pause the applicable limitations period.

The court also treated Avila’s allegations about online criticism and an attempted involuntary hospitalization as possible First Amendment retaliation claims under Section 1983. It assumed that his online postings were protected speech but found that he had not alleged facts showing that the officials acted because of that speech or that their actions chilled his exercise of free-speech rights. The court dismissed those claims and granted leave to amend.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing the claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Avila’s state-law claims.

The court dismissed the action and granted Avila 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the defects identified in the order. If he did not timely amend or show cause for failing to do so, the clerk would be directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The matter was held open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.