Smith v. Supportive Hous. Coal.

1

JERRY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. SUPPORTIVE HOUSING COALITION, a New Mexico Corporation, CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, and LAURA CHAVEZ, individually and in her capacity as an employee of Supportive Housing Coalition of New Mexico, Defendants.

Civ. No. 24-776 SCY/LF

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

September 24, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIM AND REMANDING TO STATE COURT

STEVEN C. YARBROUGH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court on July 2, 2024. Doc. 1-4. Defendants Supportive Housing Coalition and Laura Chavez removed the case to federal court on August 2, 2024, citing federal question jurisdiction. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7-10. Because the complaint was only a few sentences, Defendants filed a Motion for More Definite Statement that requested the Court order Plaintiff to elaborate on his claims. Doc. 4. Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court arguing that Defendants violated various procedural rules regarding removal, Doc. 8, and a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that the Court should order Defendants to relocate his family to a unit without the presence of toxic mold, Doc. 9.

Invoking its duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend the complaint to state a factual basis for the only federal claim in the complaint-a claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). Doc. 15 (Order to Amend). In response, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that he is in the protected classes of familial status and disability. Doc. 18 ¶ 1. It alleges that Plaintiff and his family suffer from adverse living conditions, “including cracked ceilings, water damage, and electrical hazards.” Id. ¶ 11.

“Plaintiff notified Defendants of the code violations and requested reasonable accommodations to be moved to a safer unit.” Id. ¶ 18. “Defendants did not grant reasonable accommodations and instead retaliated by accusing Plaintiff of violating various behavior policies.” Id. ¶ 19. “On December 7, 2023, Defendants terminated Plaintiff's rental assistance, citing noncompliance with the Supportive Housing Coalition's program agreement.” Id. ¶ 20. The amended complaint brings claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, the New Mexico Owner-Resident Relations Act, and retaliation and failure to accommodate under the FHA. Id.^[1]

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Plaintiff still does not state a factual basis for the FHA claim, for the same reasons the Court laid out in the Order to Amend. Doc. 20. Defendants contend that the amended complaint does not include any facts establishing a plausible causal connection between any protected status and any conduct on the part of Defendants.

The Fair Housing Act, among other things, prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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 . . . familial status”^[2] or a “handicap.”^[3]42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f). “Discrimination” includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Id. § 3604(f)(3)(B). “To state a plausible claim under the FHA, a plaintiff must allege a causal connection between her [membership in a protected class] or protected activity and the alleged adverse action.” Morgan v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., 719 Fed.Appx. 735, 743 (10th Cir. 2017). A complaint must also present the underlying facts that establish such a link. See Reyes v. McDonald's Corp. of Illinois, No. 24-1211, 2024 WL 4040385, at *2 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2024) (affirming dismissal of disability discrimination claim for failure to support the allegations with “underlying facts”).^[4]

“In the words of the FHA, a reasonable accommodation is required whenever it ‘may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.'” Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr., Inc. v. Saint George City, 685 F.3d 917, 923 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)) (emphasis in Tenth Circuit opinion).

[T]he FHA's necessity requirement doesn't appear in a statutory vacuum, but is expressly linked to the goal of “afford[ing] . . . equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). And this makes clear that the object of the statute's necessity requirement is a level playing field in housing for the disabled. Put simply, the statute requires accommodations that are necessary (or indispensable or essential) to achieving the objective of equal housing opportunities between those with disabilities and those without....[I]t does not require more or better opportunities.

Id.

In sum, the FHA does not regulate living conditions generally, but only discrimination in the terms or provision of housing. And, to state a claim, Plaintiff must present underlying facts that link the adverse or unsafe living conditions to his familial status or his disability. Other district courts have likewise found that merely alleging adverse housing conditions and the presence of a disability, without a causal link, is insufficient to state a claim. See Scoggins v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc., No. 22cv1542, 2023 WL 2354820, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2023) (“Plaintiff makes no link between her allegations of uninhabitable conditions and discriminatory treatment in her FHA claim. Nor does Plaintiff allege that she sought any specific reasonable accommodation for her disability and was refused on account of her disability. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that she was denied equal treatment related to the terms, conditions, or privileges of her rental relationship with Defendant because of her disability.”); Sudduth v. Vasquez, No. 08cv1106, 2009 WL 211572, at *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2009) (“Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by subjecting him to unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, refusing to move him to the apartment complex of his choice, and ignoring his numerous written complaints about the condition of his apartment, on account of his race, religion, or disability....Although plaintiff has alleged that he is African-American, Muslim, and disabled, he has not alleged facts to support his claim that the actions of the [] Defendants were motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a disparate impact. Plaintiff's conclusory allegations of discriminatory conduct, without any factual support, cannot withstand a motion to dismiss ....”); Gibson v. Cmty. Dev. Partners, No. 22cv454, 2022 WL 10481324, at *5 (D. Or. Oct. 18, 2022) (dismissing a FHA disability discrimination claim where the plaintiff did not allege “uninhabitable living conditions unique to Plaintiff based on her protected status”); Id. at *6 (“Plaintiff makes no connection between her alleged impairment and any accommodation that may be necessary for her to inhabit Defendants' housing unit. It is unclear what specific accommodation she sought, how such accommodation may have been necessary to address her disability or ‘handicap,' and how it would make her housing situation equal to the opportunities afforded non-disabled persons.”).

With respect to both familial status and disability, Plaintiff's amended complaint suffers from all of these deficiencies. As for the former, the amended complaint lacks any detail as to his familial status. In response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff provides some additional information. He argues that “Plaintiff Jerry Smith and his family, including his minor children, were residing at the property managed by Defendants. This is sufficient to allege Plaintiffs status based on familial status under the FHA.” Doc. 22 at 3 (citation omitted). But even if this information were in the complaint, it is not sufficient. Plaintiff must also allege facts that plausibly support a causal connection between his familial status and the unsafe living conditions or termination of rental assistance. There are no facts in any of Plaintiff's filings that would support a claim that Defendants took action or failed to take any action because he has minor children living with him.

In his response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff also elaborates on his disability: he asserts that he has “a diagnosed mental health condition that affects his daily living activities.” Doc. 22 at 3. Again, Plaintiff does not link his mental health condition to his claims. He does not say what accommodations he requested or, more importantly, why the accommodations were linked to his mental health condition.^[5]

Plaintiff also submitted an audio exhibit which he asserts “captures admissions by Defendant Laura Chavez, an employee of the Supportive Housing Coalition of New Mexico, regarding several of the conditions and discriminatory practices alleged by Plaintiff.” Doc. 22 at 1. The amended complaint, however, does not link these admissions to any protected statuses, but only states that it discusses living conditions generally:

Defendant Laura Chavez admits to several of the allegations made by Plaintiff, including the lack of a Housing Quality Inspection and the unsafe living conditions of the unit. This recording corroborates Plaintiff's assertions that Defendants were aware of the hazardous conditions but failed to take timely corrective action. The audio also captures discussions by Defendant Chavez regarding the decision not to move Plaintiff and his family to safer accommodations, contrary to their earlier promises. This recording is crucial in establishing that Defendants were not only aware of the conditions but also

...