STEELE v. NEAL
2:23-cv-12034-JXN-JBC
| D.N.J. | Oct 17, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Kimberley Steele filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis; the IFP application was granted.
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the Rule 12(b)(6)/Rule 8 pleading standards.
- The cover sheet listed multiple causes (housing/FHA, administrative procedure, ADA/disability, constitutional, civil rights, libel/slander) but the complaint lacked statutory citations and factual allegations supporting each claim.
- The court found the FHA, APA, and ADA/disability theories were pleaded only in conclusory fashion and did not plead required elements; APA claims fail against state actors.
- The complaint was also characterized as a shotgun pleading because it failed to identify which defendants committed which acts and thus did not put defendants on notice.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice; Steele was granted 30 days to file an amended complaint and the case was administratively terminated pending any amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint survives §1915(e)(2) screening / Rule 8 | Steele alleges various civil-rights and disability/housing claims (general statements of harm) | N/A — court reviews for pleading deficiencies | Dismissed: allegations are conclusory, vague, and fail plausibility standard |
| Validity of Fair Housing Act claim | Implicit FHA/housing claim and "personal property damage" allegations | N/A — no factual basis or statutory citation provided | Dismissed: FHA claim not pleaded with facts showing disparate treatment, disparate impact, or failure to accommodate |
| Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act | Plaintiff lists an Administrative Procedure cause of action | N/A — APA generally governs federal agencies | Dismissed: APA does not apply to state agencies and no federal-agency rulemaking challenge pleaded |
| ADA/disability discrimination claim | Plaintiff cites disability/ADA and unemployment/age discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 12117 | N/A — no factual allegations provided about qualification, disability, or adverse action | Dismissed: fails to plead elements (qualified individual, disability, adverse action because of disability) |
| Shotgun pleading / notice to defendants | Complaint names defendants but does not tie acts to specific defendants | N/A | Dismissed: complaint fails to specify which defendant committed which acts and does not put defendants on notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Schreane v. Seana, [citation="506 F.App'x 120"] (3d Cir. 2012) (equating § 1915 screening with Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishing the plausibility pleading standard)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (pleadings must be construed favorably to pro se plaintiffs and factual allegations accepted as true)
- Ruther v. State Kentucky Officers, [citation="556 F. App'x 91"] (3d Cir. 2014) (Rule 8 permits dismissal of confused or unintelligible complaints)
- Hansen Found., Inc. v. City of Atlantic City, 504 F. Supp. 3d 327 (D.N.J. 2020) (outlining FHA claim theories: disparate treatment, disparate impact, failure to accommodate)
- Baldwin v. Housing Authority of City of Camden, NJ, 278 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D.N.J. 2003) (Administrative Procedure Act does not reach state agencies)
- Furgess v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 933 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2019) (elements required for disability-discrimination claims)