Yusim v. New York City Housing Authority

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 7/15/13 the the amended complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the NYCHA and to close this case. The Court certifies pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposes of any appeal. ( Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 7/15/2013) c/m to plaintiff (Guzzi, Roseann)

fiLED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
US tJ!STRICT COURT E.D.N Y

*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________________ ---J{

jUL 16 2013

*

BROOKLYN OFFICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MIKHAIL YUSIM,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

-againstNEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

13-CV-3232 (SLT)

Defendant.

______________________________________________________ ---J{

TOWNES, United States District Judge:
On June 4, 2013, Mikhail Yusim ("Plaintiff'), proceeding pro se, commenced this action
against New York City Housing Authority (the "NYCHA") pursuant to the Fair Housing Act
("FHA"). Pursuant to the court's June 13,2013 memorandum and order, Plaintiff, on June 24,
2013, filed an amended complaint. For the following reasons, the court dismisses Plaintiff's
amended complaint.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By memorandum and order dated June 13,2013, the court granted Plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court, however, dismissed the
complaint because Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff alleged that he was
assigned an incorrect priority code that did not reflect his disability or homelessness. Plaintiff
recognized that the NYCHA subsequently corrected the error, but complained that his application
had not yet been acted upon and that he suffered various inconveniences associated with the
delay. The court concluded that Plaintiff had provided no facts that showed that he suffered any
discrimination pursuant to the FHA. Notwithstanding the court's dismissal of the complaint, it
granted Plaintiffleave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff
filed his amended complaint.

-

-.

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff reiterates many of the factual allegations in his
original complaint, including that despite Plaintiffs application to the NYCHA, which indicated
that he was homeless and receiving social security disability benefits, he was initially assigned an
incorrect priority code that did not reflect these conditions. Plaintiff again acknowledges that the
NYCHA, by letter dated February 27,2013, informed him that his priority codes were corrected
after he notified the authority ofthe error. (See id.; Amended Complaint Ex. 6.) Nevertheless,
Plaintiff now maintains that the NYCHA "intentionally" assigned him the incorrect codes to
delay consideration of his application. (Amended Complaint at 2.) He requests that this court
"interfere and help with the process," and essentially seeks an order elevating the priority of his
application and compelling the NYCHA to make a determination as to that application sooner
rather than later. (Id. at 2.)

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its
face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim will be considered
"plausible on its face" "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). Although a pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual
allegations to meet the plausibility standard, it is still held to less stringent standards than
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007), and the court is

2

.... ~

--..
obliged to construe plaintiff s pleadings liberally and interpret them as raising the strongest
arguments they suggest. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, pursuant
to the in forma pauperis statute, the complaint can be dismissed "at any time" if the Court
determines that the action is (i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C. § 19l5(e)(2)(B).
B.

Fair Housing Act

To establish discrimination under the FHA, a plaintiff may proceed under three available
theories: "(I) intentional discrimination (disparate treatment), (2) disparate impact; and (3)
failure to make reasonable accommodation." Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dep't., 352 F.3d
565,573 (2d Cir. 2003).
As indicated, Plaintiff, in his amended complaint, largely reiterates the facts set forth in
his original complaint, and again vents his frustration at the length of time that he has been
forced to wait for a decision on his application. However, as the court indicated in its previous
memorandum and order, Plaintiffs desire to speed up the process of calling him for an interview
is not a basis for an FHA claim. (See Document No.5 (quotation marks omitted).) To be sure,
Plaintiff now alleges that the NYCHA "intentionally" assigned him an incorrect priority status to
delay consideration of his application. (Amended Complaint at 1-2.) In this regard, however,
Plaintiff asserts only that he previously verbally complained to the NYCHA on behalf of his
mother regarding a broken pipe in her apartment and that, "[gJiven the fact that the NYCHA was
familiar with the situation they have decided that it was not wise to move me in, as it was
assumed that I will keep complaining." (Amended Complaint at 2.) Such a bald assertion is
3

·

."

simply insufficient to nudge Plaintiff s claim of intentional discrimination under the FHA across
the line from conceivable to plausible. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009). In short,
because Plaintiffs amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies noted by the court in its
prior order and does not adduce any additional facts that may fairly be read to state a claim for
discrimination under the FHA, dismissal is warranted.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that state a claim for discrimination
under the FHA, and the amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter judgment in favor of the NYCHA and to close this case. The court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith
and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purposes of an appeal. Coppedge v.

United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (l962). The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order
to Plaintiff and indicate the mailing on the electronic docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 0,,,,.£\.0'1/' ,S ,2013
Brookly:' ~ ew ork

It

/s/(SLT)
fjANIJKA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge

4