Thompson v. NYC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 12, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-01153·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DESIREE THOMPSON and DARIN POOLE, Plaintiffs, 19-CV-1153 (LLS) -against- ORDERTO AMEND NYC; NYCHA; NEW YORK STATE; and KING TOWERS, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, bringthis action complainingabout the conditions of their New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) apartment. By order dated May 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.§1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to 1 On April 30, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiffs failed tofile on his and her on behalfan IFP application, after being directed to do so by the Court in two separateorders. On May 21, 2019, after the case was closed, Plaintiffs each filed his and her own application. By order dated May 23, 2019, the Court reopened the action. construe pro sepleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The Court’s “special solicitude,” Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per

curiam), has its limits, however, because pro sepleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Id. But the Court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). As set forth in Iqbal:

[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. (internal citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted).After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible –not merely possible –that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Desiree Thompson and Darin Poole bring this complaint against New York City, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), New York State, and Kings Tower.2 The following facts and assertions are taken from the complaint: Plaintiffs share a NYCHA apartment in an apartment building named,Kings Towers, located in Manhattan. Since

2012, the apartment “has just been falling apart.” (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiffs have contacted Kings Tower management asking for repairs, to no avail. Rather, Defendants have “discriminat[ed]” against them. (Id.at 5.) Plaintiffs specific complaints regarding theirapartment includethe following: (1) peeling paint; (2) lead paint chips falling into the tub, sink, and floor, requiring constant sweeping; (3) traces of asbestos in the living room, kitchen, master bedroom, and bathroom; (4) mice, rats, and “billions of roaches” that “have taken over the apt”; (5) a broken kitchen countertop that “has fell completely apart on a slant”; (6) leaking gas; and (7) an unsecure front door that had been “kicked by police officers who presented no help or anything else.” (Id.at 3-4.)Thompson, who is Poole’s aunt, is disabled and can barely walk. (Id.at 5.)

Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctive relief; specifically, they request orders permitting them to stop making rental payments until all repairs are completed and directing NYCHA to transfer Thompson to another apartment.

2At this stage, it is unknown the relationship between NYCHA and Kings Tower, although it appears that Kings Tower is operated by NYCHA. But because Plaintiffs do not state in their complaint whether they intend to assert separate state-law claims against Kings Tower, the Court declines to dismiss this defendant sua sponte. DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff Thompson fails to state a claim that Defendants discriminated against her based on her disability Because Plaintiff Thompsonasserts that she is disabled, the Court liberally construes the complaint as assertingareasonable accommodation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132,3 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the Rehabilitation Act),4 and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.The Rehabilitation Act similarly provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Thompson v. NYC, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Thompson v. NYC (Thompson v. NYC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
United States v. Georgia
546 U.S. 151 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Williams v. New York City Housing Authority
408 F. App'x 389 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
McElwee v. County of Orange
700 F.3d 635 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Logan v. Matveevskii
57 F. Supp. 3d 234 (S.D. New York, 2014)