Cain v. Rambert
| Decision Date | 30 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | 13-CV-5807 (MKB) |
| Parties | ILEEN CAIN, Plaintiff, v. JEROME RAMBERT, KENYA POPE, BRIAN MITCHELL, KAREN RUTH, UNIKA STEELE, JANE DOE and HAAZIQ PAUL REID, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Ileen Cain, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on October 21, 2013, against her landlord, Jerome Rambert, and two neighbors, Kenya Pope and Brian Mitchell, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. ("FHA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. (the "Rehabilitation Act"), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the "Equal Justice Under Telecommunications Act," the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL"), as well as city and state law claims for retaliatory eviction, breach of warranty of habitability and breach of contract. By order dated November 26, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against her landlord Jerome Rambert, several tenants including Kenya Pope, Brian Mitchell, Karen Ruth,Unika Steele, and Jane Doe, and New York City Police Officer Haaziq Paul Reid. (Docket Entry No. 7.) On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff requested the appointment of pro bono counsel. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and her request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2007. (Am. Compl. 1.)1 In March 2012, Plaintiff moved into a Section 8 apartment on Stuyvesant Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.2 Rambert, the landlord of the building in which Plaintiff lives, disclosed Plaintiff's disability to Ruth, a tenant. (Id.) Because Plaintiff did not respond to sexual advances and propositions from Ruth and another tenant, Steele, they organized "the spreading of lies regarding Plaintiff's sexuality and mental capacity, with the aiding and abetting of Defendant Pope [and] Defendant Mitchell," two other tenants in the building. (Id.) "Throughout the community . . . and the internet Plaintiff is called 'bi coo coo bi too, kook kook . . . .'" (Id.) "The rant is continued by Defendants Ruth and Steele" through the use of an acoustic device that emits disturbing noises "that are harmful to Plaintiff['s] hearing . . . and interrupt[] sleep," andthrough "telecommunication tools such as the [I]nternet."3 (Id. at 1-2.) Ruth and Steele yell "coo coo care care care coo kook her kook her" during the night and scream and bang on the walls. (Id. at 5.) Ruth and Steele have also gathered personal information about Plaintiff, attempted to make false police reports against Plaintiff and have called Emergency Medical Services ("EMS"), alleging that Plaintiff is an emotionally disturbed person. (Id. at 2.) Pope "is aiding and abetting" Steele and Ruth by calling out "koook it coo coo coo coo coo coo coo kook it he care he care kook it kook it," as Pope enters and leaves the building. (Id. at 2.) Mitchell has entered and left the building "yelling the same rant," and told Plaintiff that Plaintiff needs medication. (Id. at 3.) Reid, a New York City police officer, is "aiding and abetting" the allegations in the Amended Complaint and "put[ting] Plaintiff['s] life in danger . . . by not informing Plaintiff he was soliciting sex from Defendants Pope and Steele." (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff also alleges that "[t]he foundation of the house is shoddy and this amplifies sound," that her apartment "is unfit for human privacy," and that as a result she is unable to speak on the telephone or have company. (Id. at 6, 9.) Plaintiff has filed numerous reports with the New York City Police Department and the Office of the New York State Attorney General, which she attaches to the Amended Complaint. (See Police Reports, annexed to Am. Compl. as Ex. 3; Letter from Attorney General, annexed to Am. Compl. as Ex. 4.) Plaintiff has sent over400 text messages to Rambert "describing the events taking place on [the] property as they unfold," as well as certified notarized mail which was returned to Plaintiff. (Am. Compl. at 4.) Since Plaintiff made the complaints to the police, Rambert has initiated "frivolous" holdover proceedings against her. (Id.) The holdover proceedings initiated by Rambert have been dismissed due to his failure to appear and improper service. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and unspecified injunctive relief, and seeks to have this Court "evict the tenants" who reside in the building. (Id. at 10-11.)
A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although all allegations contained in a complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is "inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful that the Plaintiff's pleadings should be held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (). If a liberal reading of a complaint "gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," the Court must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Shabazz v. Bezio, 511 F. App'x 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Branum v. Clark, 927 F. 2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991)). Nevertheless, the Court is required to dismiss sua sponte an in forma pauperis action, if it determines the action "(i) is frivolous ormalicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). A court's review of a complaint is limited to the four corners of the complaint, but it may also review (1) documents attached to the complaint, (2) any documents incorporated in the complaint by reference, (3) documents deemed integral to the complaint, and (4) public records. See L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir. 2011) (); Global Network Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (); Blue Tree Hotels Inv. (Canada), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 2004) (public records).
A plaintiff seeking to bring a lawsuit in federal court must establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See, e.g., Monreal v. New York, 518 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2013) (); Zito v. N.Y.C. Office of Payroll Admin., 514 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2013) (same); Chestnut v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, No. 11-CV-5369, 2012 WL 1657362, at *3 (). A court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented, or when plaintiffs and defendants have complete diversity of citizenship and theamount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
By Memorandum and Order dated November 26, 2013, Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the Complaint to "provide facts sufficient to allow each named Defendant to have a fair understanding of what the Plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery" for housing discrimination under the FHA, the ADA, or Section 504. Cain v. Rambert, No. 13-CV-5807, 2013 WL 6194294, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2013) (quoting Knowles v. Namdor Inc., No. 13-CV-3746, 2013 WL 5887039, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2013)). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint provides more detailed factual allegations regarding the names and activities of other tenants in the building. However, although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's circumstances, even under the less stringent standards applicable to pro se complaints, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible housing discrimination claim pursuant to the FHA, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act or the Equal Protection Clause.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court evict other tenants in her building, but the Court has no authority to do so since federal courts, unlike state courts, have no...
To continue reading
Request your trial