Joseph v. Hollis Family Residence
1:21-cv-01695
| E.D.N.Y | Jun 11, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Anderson Joseph filed five consolidated §1983 suits against private family shelters/hotels in NYC alleging loud, dirty, and abusive conditions, "experiments," discrimination, and emotional injury; he sought large monetary damages.
- The complaints cover stays in 2018–2020 at Row Hotel, Children’s Rescue Fund program, The Landing Family Shelter, Springfield Family Residence, and Hollis Family Residence.
- Joseph was granted in forma pauperis status; the Court screened the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The Court found defendants to be private entities and that Joseph did not allege facts showing their conduct was "fairly attributable" to the state (no state-action allegation).
- The Court held the alleged shelter conditions did not rise to constitutional violations (no right to shelter; plaintiff was free to leave) and some allegations were conclusory or fantastical.
- All five actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim; leave to amend was denied as futile; IFP for appeal was denied and Joseph was warned about potential filing injunctions for vexatious litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants acted under color of state law for §1983 | Joseph alleges shelters/staff deprived him of rights by abusive conduct and discriminatory treatment | Defendants are private providers; no facts show state control, encouragement, or delegation of public function | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege state action; §1983 claim not viable |
| Whether shelter conditions constituted a constitutional violation | Loudness, dirt, broken elevator, bad food, staff abuse caused stress/depression and warrant damages | Provision of shelter alone does not create constitutional protections; plaintiff was not involuntarily confined | Dismissed: no constitutional right to shelter; conditions did not state a constitutional claim |
| Whether to grant leave to amend the complaints | Implied request for opportunity to replead (pro se) | Court: defects are substantive and not curable by repleading | Denied: amendment would be futile |
| Whether to restrict future filings / impose sanctions | N/A (plaintiff warned) | Court notes multiple other recent filings by plaintiff and potential abuse of process | Court issued warning that future vexatious filings may lead to injunction/sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standards for pleading plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (private entities providing services under contract not necessarily state actors)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (§1983 is remedial vehicle, not source of substantive rights)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (private conduct excluded from §1983 absent state action)
- Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193 (tests for state action attribution)
- Sybalski v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Program, Inc., 546 F.3d 255 (state-action tests summarized)
- Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (definition of frivolous pleading)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (leave to amend need not be granted where amendment would be futile)
- Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (no constitutional right to governmental provision of housing)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (good-faith standard for appeals and IFP appeals)