MUHINDI v. SANCHEZ et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to file an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from entry of this Order if he so c hooses. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the entry of this Order, this Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice; that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of the Opinion and Order to Plaintiff by certified mail return receipt requested.. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 6/29/2018. (ld, ).
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IMANI MUHINDI,
Plaintiff
Civil Action No. 18-10980
(JMV) (JBC)
V.
YOLANDA
SANCHEZ,
HOUSING AUTHORITY,
and
NEWARK
OPINION & ORDER
Defendants.
John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action informapattperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. D.E.
1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs application to proceed informa
pauperis but the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
191 5(e)(2)(B) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, Plaintiff
fails to plausibly plead a claim.
Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court may excuse a litigant from prepayment of fees when
the litigant “establish[es] that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Walker v. People Express
Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). Here, Plaintiff demonstrates his inability to pay
the costs of his suit, D.E. 1-2, and the Court grants his application to proceed informa paurperis
without prepayment of fees and costs.
However, when allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must review
the Complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). When considering dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must apply the same standard
of review as that for dismissing a complaint under federal Rule of civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Schreane v. Seana, 506 fed. App’x 120, 122 (3d cir. 2012). To state a claim that survives a Rule
1 2(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ash croft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Plaintiff is proceedingpro se, the Court construes the pleadings
liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard than those filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
“The Court need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiffs ‘bald
assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.” D’Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 2010 WL 3719623, at *1
(D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2010).
Before deciding if a plaintiff states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court “is
bound to consider its own jurisdiction preliminary to consideration of the merits.” Trent Realty
Assocs. v. First Fed. Say. & Loan Ass ‘ii ofPhiladelphia, 657 f.2d 29, 36 (3d Cir. 1981); see also
Fed. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Here, Plaintiff alleges federal jurisdiction because the United States
Government is a Plaintiff. D.E. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs basis for jurisdiction is incorrect because this
action involves a claim by a private citizen against another private citizen and the local housing
authority. However, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the Court construes his Complaint
liberally and decides that it implicates a federal question as the Complaint also attempts to cite 42
U.S.C. §sS 1983, 3601, and 3631 as bases for his suit. D.E. 1-5; see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
2
519, 520 (1972). Thus, the Court will assume Plaintiff intends the basis for jurisdiction to be
federal question.
A case implicates a federal question if “a well-pleaded complaint establishes that either
federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on
the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” franchise Tax 3d. Of Cal.
Constr.
Laborers Vacation TrustforS. Cal., 463 U.S. 1,27-28(1983). Plaintiff potentially alleges federal
claims on the face of his Complaint. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter.
Here, Plaintiff arguably alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Section 1983 provides in
relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory. subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress[.j
.
.
Section 1983 does not provide substantive rights; rather, it provides a vehicle for vindicating
violations of other federal rights. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). In order to
state a valid claim for relief under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must first allege a violation of a right secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, a plaintiff must contend that the
violation was caused or committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Plaintiff also apparently alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 3601, a subdivision of the
Federal Fair Housing Act (“EHA”). This section provides, “It is the policy of the United States to
provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.” The FHA
was enacted to eradicate discrimination in housing. Texas Dept. of Housing and Community
3
Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 $.Ct. 2507, 2521 (2015). The FHA defines
discrimination as “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” because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. §3604. A plaintiff can establish a violation of the FHA by showing that defendant’s
actions were either (1) motivated by intentional discrimination; or (2) resulted in a discriminatory
effect. Hibbert v. Bellmawr Park Mut. Housing Corp., No. 10—5386, 2014 WL 2920704, at *8
(D.N.J. June 27, 2014).
Plaintiff also arguably alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 3631, which provides:
Whoever. .by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates
or interferes with. .any person because of his race, color, religion,
sex, handicap. .familial status. .or national origin and because he is
or has been. .renting... shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned
not more than one year{.]
.
.
.
.
.
Although the Court construes Plaintiffs Complaint liberally, the Court cannot determine
any viable causes of action. With respect to Plaintiffs
§ 1983 claim, Plaintiff does not allege that
any specific federal right was violated, but merely alleges a deprivation of rights. D.E. 1-5, at VI.
Even construing the pleadings liberally and assuming that Plaintiff intends to assert that he was
evicted (or at least asked to vacate his premises because it is not clear whether he is still residing
in his apartment) without due process, the multiple notices to cease from Defendants, notice of
eviction, and grievance hearing documentation does not allow the Court to draw a reasonable
inference that this right was violated. D.E. 1-1 at 8-11. If Plaintiff wishes to assert a claim under
§ 1983, he must first allege that Defendants violated a right secured by the Constitution, and second
that Defendants were acting under color of state law when they did so. See West, 487 U.S. at 4$.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs
§
1983 claim.
4
With respect to Plaintiffs
§ 3601 claim, Plaintiff does not adequately allege that his
eviction was a result of intentional discrimination on the part of Defendants. While he alleges that
Defendants refused to make the accommodations he requested, D.E. I at 3, Plaintiffs Complaint
does not allow the Court to infer that the refusal was due to improper discrimination. Plaintiff
does allege that Defendants may have been discriminating against him based on his former
employment with Defendant Newark Housing Authority (“NHA”). Id. at 4. However, former
employment is not a recognized basis for a discrimination claim. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 3604. If Plaintiff
wishes to bring a claim under § 3601, he must allege facts which plausibly suggest that Defendants
refused to accommodate him because of his race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national
origin. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
Similarly, Plaintiffs
§ 3601 claim is dismissed.
§ 3631 is dismissed because former employment is not a recognized
basis for a discrimination allegation. This section also requires a showing of willfulness and use
of force or threat of force. Plaintiffs Complaint does not allege that any force or threat of forced
was used in his eviction. See D.E. 1. As discussed above, he also does not allege sufficient
allegations to allow the Court to infer that there was any discrimination or that it was willful.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs
§ 3631 claim is dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a cause of action, and his
Complaint is dismissed. When dismissing a case brought by apro se plaintiff, a court must decide
whether the dismissal will be with prejudice or without prejudice, which affords a plaintiff leave
to amend. Grayson
V.
Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 110-11 (3d Cir. 2002). The District
Court may deny leave to amend only if: (a) the moving party’s delay in seeking amendment is
undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the non-moving party, or (b) the amendment would
be futile. Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 f.2d 858, 864 (3d Cir. 1984). While the Court has concerns
5
about the futility of an amendment, the Court will provide Plaintiff another opportunity to replead
his action. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file an Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies
set forth herein. If Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies within
thirty days, the dismissal will then be with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice means that
Plaintiff will be precluded from filing any future suit against Defendants concerning the allegations
in his Complaint.
Because Plaintiff is representing himself, the Court also makes the following observation.
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff may actually be attempting to assert state causes of action
against Defendants because many of Plaintiffs allegations sound in landlord-tenant type
disagreements. If this is Plaintiffs intent, then he should seek to dismiss the current federal action
and refile his complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, while appropriately indicating his
state claims.
Accordingly, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 29th day of June, 201$,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed informa paitperis is GRANTED; and
it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to
file an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from entry of this Order if he so chooses. If
Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the entry of this Order, this Court
will direct the Clerk of the Court to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice1; and it is further
If Plaintiff decides to dismiss the current federal action and refile in state court, he should
advise the Court in writing within the thirty (30) day period.
6
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of the Opinion and Order to Plaintiff
by certified mail return receipt requested.
John vTichael
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?