Sykes v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.

1

DERRY SYKES, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant.

No. 1:22-CV-2127 (MKV)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 24, 2022

ORDER TO AMEND

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Derry Sykes, who is appearing pro se, filed this action asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law. He sues the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”), and seeks damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking immediate emergency repairs to his NYCHA apartment. (ECF 4.)

By order dated March 18, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an 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 over 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.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Id. 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. Id. (citing 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. at 679.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the following: Plaintiff and the other members of his household are disabled.^[1] They are NYCHA tenants, and live in a NYCHA apartment located in Manhattan. On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request with NYCHA to have his apartment's walls plastered and painted; the request “was erroneously closed and may have involved forging [P]laintiff['s] signature as signing off on the work ticket.” (ECF 2, at 4.) On September 26, 2019 Plaintiff filed another request for the same repairs, but “to date[, ] no repairs have [been] made on said ticket.” (Id. at 5.) More than a year later, on November 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed yet another request for repairs “after several water leaks from tenants above . . . flood[ed] [P]laintiff's apartment living room ceiling and walls severely and no repairs ha[ve] been done to date.” (Id.) More than a year after that, on December 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed still another request for repairs associated with low water pressure in Plaintiff's bathroom; those repairs never occurred. Leaking pipes in the wall behind Plaintiff's showerhead are the source of the low water pressure. These leaks have caused the electric outlets in Plaintiff's kitchen to malfunction, damaged Plaintiff's washing machine, and present a potential electrical-fire hazard in Plaintiff's kitchen.

Plaintiff visited his NYCHA building manager's office on multiple occasions to complain about NYCHA's failure to repair his apartment. NYCHA employees came to his apartment to take photographs of the areas that required repairs and forwarded those photographs to their supervisors, but no repairs have occurred. The repairs are urgent because Plaintiff is disabled and “resides in [a] retrofitted/Section 504 apartment that demands a higher priority when it comes to completion of repairs.” (Id. at 6.) NYCHA “is [in] violation of [P]laintiff's [right to] due process of law to adequately and timely make required major repairs to the current condition of [his] premises. . . . (Id.)

Plaintiff lists the current conditions of his NYCHA apartment in the following manner:

a) Bathroom: (i) Water leaks from the ceiling to base board causing partial collapse; (ii) Water leaks causing the walls to collapse and paint peeling; (iii) Water leaks from shower pipes causing extreme low hot water pressure; (iv) Water leaks from shower pipes traveling to the hallway walls and to kitchen area causing unsanitary, hazardous and dangerous conditions; Water damage to bathroom sink; (v) Water damage[] to medicine cabinet; (vi) defective toilet which often floods apartment, do[es] not flush properly and was used when [P]laintiff moved into premises; (vii) Mold around tub, sink, medicine cabinet, shower, walls [and] ceiling; bathroom, shower, tub not draining properly; (viii) Painting [and] plastering needed;

b) Hallway Adjacent To Bathroom: (i) Water damage causing damage[] to the repairs previous[ly] made in the hall . . . that resulted in large section[s] of the hallway walls collapsing two (2) years prior to current conditions complained of; Column base from the floor to ceiling peeling and cracking causing large debris from the walls to fall daily; (ii) Painting [and] plastering needed; (iii) Mold in the hallway caused by water leaks;

c) Kitchen: (i) Holes in the ceiling and walls stemming from water leaks from shower pipes traveling to kitchen area; (ii) Electric outlets in the kitchen inoperable caused by leaks; (iii) Mold in the kitchen cause[d] by water leaks; (iv) Kitchen cabinets damaged by water leaks;

d) Living room: (i) Water damage from causing the walls [and] ceiling to collapse in large sections; (ii) Paint [and] plastering needed; (iii) Mold in the living room area w[h]ere leaks occurred.

(Id. at 7-8.)

DISCUSSION

A. The Fair Housing Act

The Fair Housing Act (“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). Section 3604 makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the . . . rental [of], or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any . . . renter because of” the individual's disability. § 3604(f)(1)(A). It also 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 with such a dwelling, because of a [disability].” § 3604(f)(2). Under the FHA, disability discrimination further 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.” § 3604(f)(3)(B).

“To demonstrate a disability under the FHA, a plaintiff must show: (1) ‘a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more . . . major life activities'; (2) ‘a record of having such an impairment'; or (3) that he or she is ‘regarded as having such an impairment.'” See Rodriguez v. Village Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 40 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)). Generally, to state a claim of intentional discrimination under the FHA, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that he “was ‘a member of a protected class,' suffered relevant ‘adverse' treatment, and ‘can sustain a minimal burden of showing facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation.'” Palmer v. Fannie Mae, 755 Fed.Appx. 43, 45 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (emphasis in original) (quoting Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 311 (2d Cir. 2015)). “‘[A] plaintiff need only give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation' at the pleading stage.” Id. at 45-46 (quoting Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 84 (2d Cir. 2015)). Thus, “a plaintiff may not need to prove that her protected status was a but-for cause of the adverse action she suffered, but only a motivating factor.” Id. at 46 (citing Vega, 801 F.3d at 86); Fair Hous. Justice Ctr., Inc. v. Edgewater Park Owners Coop., Inc., No. 10-CV-0912l, 2012 WL 762323, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2012) (“To establish a claim under the FHA . . ., Plaintiff must demonstrate that [a protected class] is a motivating factor in” the defendant's actions.).

To state a claim under the FHA that a defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodations with respect a plaintiff's disability, however, a plaintiff must allege facts showing:

(1)

...