Philibert Kongtcheu v. Richard Constable, III
674 F. App'x 216
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Kongtcheu, a former nursing-home resident with post-polio paralysis, received a Section 8 voucher from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA) but alleged NJDCA reduced bedroom allowance, refused exemptions/modifications of voucher price caps, failed to provide utility/rental information, and declined to negotiate with landlords, impeding his transition to community housing.
- He filed a pro se second amended complaint against NJDCA and its commissioner in his official capacity asserting violations of the ADA (Title II), the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), the Olmstead integration mandate, the Fourteenth Amendment, and state tort claims; he sought damages and equitable relief.
- Kongtcheu repeatedly attempted service by fax, email, and mail, which did not comply with the Federal Rules; his motions for default were denied and a magistrate denied appointment of pro bono counsel.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court found Eleventh Amendment immunity barred damages claims, dismissed federal claims for failure to state a plausible discrimination-based theory, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and dismissed most claims with prejudice while allowing limited leave to amend the FHAA claim (which Kongtcheu did not file).
- The court of appeals treated the district court’s disposition as final (Kongtcheu elected to stand on his complaint) and affirmed, holding there was no abuse of discretion regarding denial of default or counsel and that Kongtcheu failed to plausibly allege disability-based discrimination causation for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service / request for default | Service attempts (fax, email, mail) were sufficient; default should be entered | Service did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.; defendants were not properly served | District court did not abuse discretion denying default; service methods were improper |
| Appointment of counsel | District court should appoint pro bono counsel (statutory support under FHAA) | Appointment discretionary; court reasonably applied IFP standards | Denial without prejudice affirmed; Tabron factors appropriately applied |
| Eleventh Amendment / availability of damages under federal claims | Claims for damages and equitable relief viable under ADA, Rehab Act, FHAA | State immunity bars damages; plaintiff failed to plead disability-based causation | Eleventh Amendment bars damages; plaintiff failed to plausibly state federal claims so equitable relief unavailable |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and reliefability | State tort and emotional distress claims should proceed | District court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims | District court permissibly dismissed state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (ADA may require community placement rather than institutionalization)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officers not barred by Eleventh Amendment)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (factors for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (scope of Eleventh Amendment and state liability under federal statutes)
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (plaintiff standing on complaint confirms finality for appeal)