Garanin v. New York City Housing Preservation and Development
673 F. App'x 122
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Vsevolod Garanin, pro se, applied for middle-income housing and alleged HPD and individuals denied his application based on rules discriminating against self-employed applicants and in retaliation for complaints he made about a private project manager.
- Defendants: New York City Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), Doron Taleporos (HPD deputy director), and Chanel Zeisel (project manager for a private developer).
- Garanin sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Equal Protection and First Amendment retaliation claims; he named HPD, Taleporos, and Zeisel.
- District court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Garanin appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and applied plausibility standards from Twombly/Iqbal.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, finding Garanin failed to plausibly plead an Equal Protection violation, state action by Zeisel, or municipal liability for HPD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection — protected-class discrimination | Garanin argued HPD’s guidelines discriminated against self-employed applicants | Defendants argued self-employment is not a protected class; rules applied neutrally | Held: Dismissed — self-employment is not a protected class; no prototypical claim pleaded |
| Equal Protection — "class of one" claim | Garanin alleged he was treated differently without basis | Defendants said no comparators or facts showing similarly situated persons treated differently | Held: Dismissed — complaint lacked allegations identifying comparators or similar circumstances |
| First Amendment retaliation / state action by private project manager (Zeisel) | Garanin alleged Zeisel retaliated and is liable under § 1983 | Defendants argued Zeisel is a private actor and plaintiff did not plausibly show her actions were fairly attributable to the state | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plausibly allege Zeisel’s conduct was state action |
| Municipal liability / failure to train or supervise (HPD) | Garanin alleged municipal policies or customs caused the constitutional violations | Defendants argued no plausible allegations of a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference by policymakers | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff did not plausibly allege policymaker knowledge or deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and legal conclusions vs. factual allegations)
- Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2001) (Equal Protection requires similar treatment of similarly situated persons)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection theory)
- Neilson v. D’Angelis, 409 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2005) (requirements for showing similarly situated comparators)
- Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961 (2d Cir. 2015) (state-action requirement for § 1983 defendants)
- McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier, 752 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (when private entity action can be fairly attributable to the state)
- Wray v. City of N.Y., 490 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2007) (municipal liability and failure-to-train theory)
- Jones v. Town of E. Haven, 691 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2012) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal liability)