Persaud v. Gupta

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND DECISION: As the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under the FHA or any other provision of federal law, the action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Any state law claims are dismissed without prejudice . The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. So Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 5/4/2017. (Tavarez, Jennifer)

FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y

^

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MAY 1 0 2017 ^

BROOKLYN OFFICE
NARAD PERSAUD,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Plaintiff,

MEMQRANDUM & ORDER

-against-

17-Cy-1273(WFK)
RAHUL GUPTA,
Defendant.
X

KUNTZ,II, United States District Judge:

Pro se plaintiff Narad Persaud ("Plaintiff)filed the above-captioned Complaint on
March 6,2017, against Rahul Gupta("Defendant"). By Order entered April 5,2017,the Court

granted Plaintiffs request to proceed informa pauperis and dismissed the Complaint, with leave
to amend. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on April 26,2017, but it fails to cure the

deficiencies in the original. Accordingly, the action is dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In his original Complaint, Plaintiff described some racially charged incidents with
Defendant at Plaintiffs residence. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act("FHA"),

42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., but did not identify Defendant as his landlord nor allege discrimination
in the conditions ofrental or the provision of services or facilities. The Court's April 5,2017
Order directed Plaintiff to include specific factual allegations showing disparate impact or

disparate treatment on the basis of race if he wished to assert a claim under the FHA.

The Amended Complaint identifies Plaintiff as an individual of East Indian heritage and a
native of Guyana and states that Defendant "claims to be from the Indian sub-continent." Am.

Compl. at 1, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff does not directly identify Defendant as his landlord, but

initiation of eviction proceedings. Id. at 2-4. None ofthese allegations includes any reference to
racial discrimination or £iny other potential violation ofthe FHA. They may include violations of
state law provisions, but Plaintiff has not established any other basis for federal jurisdiction over
those claims.

As the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under the FHA or any other provision of
federal law, the action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Any state law

claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore informa pauperis status is denied
for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962). The
Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
SO ORDEl

s/ WFK
WILLIAM F. K
United States D

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May 4, 2017

/
/
/
/

/