Rosa v. Pathstone Corp.

1

FELICIA ROSA, Plaintiff, v. PATHSTONE CORPORATION; MEGAN JACKSON, DIRECTOR OF SECTION 8 ORANGE & SULLIVAN; DAMARIS GONZALEZ, DEPUTY QUALITY CONTROL; ZELMA DASILVA, SECTION 8 PORTABILITY WORKER; YYA ESTATES LLC/VERN S. LAZAROFF, Defendants.

No. 23-CV-1071 (LTS)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

April 27, 2023

ORDER TO AMEND

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

Plaintiff who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604, alleging that Defendants discriminated against her by terminating her subsidy in the Section 8 housing voucher program. She seeks injunctive relief and money damages. By order dated February 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings 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). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits -to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 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

Plaintiff a participant in the federally subsidized Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, brings this action against Pathstone Corporation, a local administrator of the program; Megan Jackson, Pathstone's Section 8 Director for Orange and Sullivan Counties; Damaris Gonzalez, Pathstone's Deputy of Quality Control and the Hearing Officer at Plaintiff's informal hearing; Zelma Dasilva, Pathstone's “Section 8 Portability Worker”; YYA Estates LLC, Plaintiff's landlord; and Vern S. Lazaroff, attorney for the landlord.

The following information is taken from Plaintiff's amended complaint and attached documents.^[1]Plaintiff resides in an apartment in Port Jervis, Orange County, New York, for which she paid a subsidized rent under the Section 8 program. In September 2022, Plaintiff missed an inspection of the apartment by Pathstone because of ongoing Family Court proceedings in Kings County, New York, relating to her three minor children. The Administration for Children's Services (“ACS”) had placed the children in the care of their grandmother, Plaintiff's mother, in Brooklyn, New York, but when Plaintiff's mother became ill and was placed in a long-term care facility, Plaintiff came to Brooklyn to assist in taking care of her children.

On or about October 15, 2022, Plaintiff returned to her apartment and learned that she had missed the inspection. She reached out to Pathstone to reschedule and was informed by Defendant Dasilva that Pathstone had discovered that she had vacated the apartment. Plaintiff notified Pathstone that she had not vacated the apartment and was only away for three and a half weeks on a personal family matter. She also provided to Pathstone proof of utility payments and photos of her fully furnished apartment. Pathstone directed Plaintiff to provide proof of where her children were going to school.^[2]Plaintiff sent Pathstone information indicating that her kids were temporarily attending school in New York City, along with an explanation. On October 19, 2022, however, Defendant Jackson, on behalf of Pathstone, sent Plaintiff a termination notice, informing her that it intended to terminate her Section 8 subsidy for “[n]ot using the unit as a primary residence.” (ECF 5, at 35.)^[3]The notice also quoted applicable regulations indicating that Plaintiff had breached her obligations under the Section 8 program, which required that a “family must use the assisted unit for residence by the family,” and [t]he unit must be the family's only residence.” (Id.) The notice also informed Plaintiff that she had the right to appeal the decision by requesting an informal hearing.

On December 5, 2022, an informal hearing was held before Defendant Gonzalez, and on January 23, 2023, Pathstone informed Plaintiff that it intends to terminate her Section 8 subsidy, effective April 30, 2022, because she had failed to use the subsidized apartment as her primary residence. (Id. at 31.) On January 31, 2023, Defendant Lazaroff, on behalf of Plaintiff's landlord, sent Plaintiff a notice that her tenancy was being terminated and she must vacate the premises by March 31, 2023, to avoid the commencement of eviction proceedings against her. (Id. at 14.) The next day, Plaintiff received from Pathstone a Repayment Agreement, which indicated that Pathstone had overpaid subsidies on her behalf of $27,690, which she had to repay. (Id. at 34, 3839.)

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff, who is African-American, filed a housing discrimination complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), alleging that Pathstone and its employees discriminated against her “on false or falsified documents and [she] believe[s] that this this is racially motivated or the facts that [she is] the only Black tenant” in her apartment building. (Id. at 41.) She also filed a discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Humans Rights (“NYSDHR”) in which she identifies as being Bipolar and alleges racial and disability-based discrimination. (Id. at 23-29, 32-22.) Plaintiff does not specify the status of the HUD and NYSDHR complaints.

Plaintiff brings this action asserting that Pathstone's actions were “mostly motivated by discriminatory practices policies” in violation of the Fair Housing Act. (Id. at 5.) She claims that Pathstone did not brief her on the rules or policies relating to her children being “temporarily out of the home,” and relied on false statements to terminate her Section 8 subsidies. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff also alleges that she faces “possible eviction” because of Pathstone's “wrongful termination” of her Section 8 subsidies. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff further notes that Pathstone's attempt to recoup the alleged overpayment of subsidies could “prevent [her] from ever receiving housing assistance in the future [and] was done to cause economic and housing inequality.” (Id.) She seeks injunctive relief and damages.

Shortly after commencing this action, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and an unsigned order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order with a supporting declaration. (ECF 7-8.) Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Pathstone from further pursuing her alleged overpayment of subsidies and to restrain YYA Estates from bringing eviction proceedings against her. Plaintiff challenges Pathstone's assertion that she had vacated the apartment, contending that Defendants are discriminating against her.

DISCUSSION

A. Fair Housing Act Claims

Plaintiff brings this action following the termination of her benefits under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (“Section 8”), as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f.

Plaintiff asserts that Pathstone, a local administrator of the program,^[4] and its employees have discriminated against her in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604, by terminating her Section 8 subsidies.^[5]She also sues her landlord and his attorney for the termination of her tenancy .

The FHA “broadly prohibits discrimination in housing.” Gladstone Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S 91, 93 (1979). Specifically, it prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status . . ., national origin,” or disability. 42 U.S.C.§ 3604(b), (f). The FHA also prohibits retaliation against persons who have asserted their rights under the FHA. See id. § 3617 (unlawful “to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account...