568 F. App'x 41
2d Cir.2014Background
- Heckman, a disabled veteran with PTSD and OCD, is alleged to hoard; he claims the Town of Hempstead targeted him due to disability but facts are framed by pleadings.
- On December 20, 2007, town officials boarded up Heckman’s residence after a police-detected gas smell and did not allow entry to retrieve medication, money, or a cat.
- Utilities were shut off and the home remained designated unfit for human occupancy; Heckman traveled to obtain emergency medication and slept in a motel.
- Heckman asserted ADA Title II and procedural due process claims; the district court dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed de novo and, while affirming the ADA dismissal, vacated and remanded on due process due to potential procedural defects and additional factual allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA claim plausibility | |||
| Heckman alleges defendants knew of his disability based on observed clutter and nonetheless acted with intent to exclude. | Town contends lack of evidence of disability knowledge; clutter observations are insufficient to show discriminatory intent. | ADA claim dismissed; no plausible inference of discrimination. | |
| Leave to amend regarding ADA claims | |||
| Heckman should be allowed to further amend to cure pleading deficiencies. | Leave to amend would be futile given the pleadings. | No abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend; affirmed on this point. | |
| Procedural due process viability (emergency and post-deprivation) | |||
| Allegeed emergency lacked competent evidence; post-deprivation notice was inadequate. | Emergency action may be valid with post-deprivation safeguards; notices may be appropriate post-emergency. | Two plausible grounds for due process survive; remanded for further factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading requirements)
- ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (plausibility and inference standards in pleading suits)
- Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000) (facts and references considered in motion practice)
- Cantanzaro v. Weiden, 188 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1999) (due process and post-deprivation claims)