646 F. App'x 40
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Hicham Azkour, pro se, sued Bowery Residents’ Committee and individual defendants alleging civil-rights and housing discrimination claims; the district court dismissed his complaint and denied leave to amend.
- District court dismissed claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, § 1981, and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for pleading failures and found lack of state action for § 1983 claims.
- Azkour appealed the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend; the Second Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(c) dismissal de novo and applied liberal pro se pleading standards.
- The Second Circuit treated some claims as abandoned because Azkour did not address them on appeal.
- The panel affirmed dismissal of claims requiring state-action attribution (§ 1983) but vacated and remanded the § 1981 and FHA dismissals because the district court applied an incorrect pleading standard and prematurely denied leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private defendant’s actions are state action under § 1983 | Bowery Residents’ Committee is a state actor (relying on Lebron test) | Actions are private; no special-law creation or other tests satisfied | Affirmed dismissal for lack of state action; repleading futile on this point |
| Whether § 1981 and FHA claims were properly dismissed for failure to plead discrimination | Complaint plausibly alleged discriminatory motivation; should have chance to amend | Pleading defects warranted dismissal | Vacated and remanded: district court applied wrong standard and must allow amendment unless futile |
| Whether pro se plaintiff was denied leave to amend improperly | Pro se status merits at least one opportunity to amend | Leave to amend denied as futile by district court | Vacated where futility was unclear; remand to permit amendment under liberal standard |
| Whether other claims (§§ 1985, 1986, 2000d) stand | Argues claims on appeal (not addressed) | Defendants argued dismissal | These claims abandoned on appeal; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for Rule 12(c) dismissals reviewed de novo using Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (courts construe complaints liberally and accept factual allegations as true)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (pro se complaints should be granted leave to amend when a valid claim might be stated)
- Sybalski v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Program, Inc., 546 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2008) (tests for attributing private conduct to the state)
- Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) (state-actor test where entity created by special law may be treated as state actor)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (plaintiff need not plead full McDonnell Douglas prima facie case to survive motion to dismiss)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving discrimination; often used in pleadings analysis)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (plaintiffs not required to plead facts establishing prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas to survive dismissal)
- Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’l Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007) (district court should not deny leave to amend as futile where final pleadings are unclear)