Hassan v. Slater

• Decision Date: 01 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98 CV 1955 ADS.,98 CV 1955 ADS.
• Citation: 41 F.Supp.2d 343
• Parties: John P. HASSAN, Plaintiff, v. Rodney E. SLATER, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation; Gordon Linton, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; Virgil Conway, Chairman, New York State Metropolitan Transportation Administration; Mark Shaw, Executive Director, New York State Metropolitan Transportation Administration; Thomas Prendergast, President, Long Island Railroad, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Page 343

41 F.Supp.2d 343

John P. HASSAN, Plaintiff, v.Rodney E. SLATER, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation; Gordon Linton, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; Virgil Conway, Chairman, New York State Metropolitan Transportation Administration; Mark Shaw, Executive Director, New York State Metropolitan Transportation Administration; Thomas Prendergast, President, Long Island Railroad, Defendants.

No. 98 CV 1955 ADS.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

March 1, 1999.

John P. Hassan, Center Moriches, NY, PlaintiffPro Se.

United States Attorney Office for the Eastern District of New York by Kathleen A. Mahoney, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY, for the Federal Defendants.

The Long Island Rail Road Company by Michael R. Ambrecht, Jamaica, NY, for the MTA Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

SPATT, District Judge.

This lawsuit arises out of the pro se plaintiff's dissatisfaction with a decision by the Long Island Railroad ("LIRR") and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") to close the train station located in Center Moriches, Long Island (the "Station").In so doing, the plaintiff, John P. Hassan("Hassan" or the "plaintiff"), contends that the defendants have "force[d] residents to rely on private cars and drive to mega stations e.g. Ronkonkoma and [have] abandoned those without cars and physically unable to drive cars or even afford cars.It's their fascist yuppie mentality to reinvent things in their image."

Hassan initiated this lawsuit on March 16, 1998 against the United States Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration (collectively, the "federal defendants"), and against the MTA's Chairman, the MTA's Executive Director and the LIRR's President (collectively, the "MTA defendants").His complaint alleges that the federal defendants and the MTA defendants, acting in collusion, have violated the Americans With Disabilities Act,42 U.S.C. §§ 12101("ADA"), and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.With the filing of the complaint, Hassan moved, by Order to Show Cause, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing the following: (1)"That the Long Island Railroad resume or continue to stop trains and serve passengers at [the Station]"; and (2)"that LIRR stop harassment of John P. Hassan and stop expelling him from the waiting room of Penn Station in New York City."

On March 17, 1998, the day after Hassan initiated this lawsuit, the Court denied his motion for a TRO following oral argument.The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on May 28, 1998.On June 1, 1998, the plaintiff renewed his motion for a preliminary injunction in this Court.Upon request from the defendants, this Court established a briefing schedule for various motions, which now have been fully briefed: (1) Hassan's motion for a preliminary injunction against the closure of the Station; (2) the federal defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint; (3) the MTA defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint; (4) Hassan's request that any preliminary injunction be made permanent; and (5) Hassan's motion to amend the complaint to add a cause of action based on a May 29, 1998 incident, when a ticket agent at the Jamaica Station of the Long Island Rail Road allegedly stated in a "mocking[], sarcastic[ and] ridiculing" tone over a loud-speaker that Hassan "couldn't see the schedules because he's only got one eye."

I.BACKGROUND

According to the plaintiff, he is a disabled person within the meaning of ADA, in that he suffers from total blindness in one eye, limited vision in his other eye, arthritis, asthma and other physical infirmities.He states that he receives Veteran's Disability Compensation.As a result of his disabilities, Hassan avers that he must travel frequently to Manhattan for treatment at a veteran's hospital.Prior to closure of the Station, he routinely traveled to these treatments by taking LIRR service from the Station, which is a 1 ¼ mile walk from his home, to Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan.

A.The Decision to Close the Center Moriches Station

The MTA and LIRR are public benefit corporations of the State of New York, and are charged with the responsibility of developing and implementing a unified mass transportation system for the New York metropolitan region.N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law§§ 1263(1), 1264 and 1266(5).

The Department of Transportation("DOT") provides federal funding for capital and operating assistance to the LIRR, a commuter rail system.The Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") is the DOT component that administers the funding.49 U.S.C. §§ 5301,5302,5309,5323and5324.Since the LIRR receives federal financial assistance, it is subject to the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and DOT regulations implementing these Acts. 49 C.F.R. § 27.3, and Parts 37-38.

On or about November 13, 1996, the LIRR advised the MTA Board that it would begin necessary procedures to close certain low customer volume stations, including the Center Moriches Station.None of these stations were designated "Key Stations" by the LIRR in its Final Key Station Plan.The Court notes that DOT ADA regulations require that Key Stations be accessible to individuals with disabilities.49 C.F.R. § 37.47(a), (c)(1).According to the MTA defendants, it selected the Center Moriches Station for possible closure because of its low customer volume, the substantial capital investment necessary to construct high-level platforms to accommodate the LIRR's new diesel fleet, alternate transportation modes within a reasonable distance, and little or no market growth potential.

The MTA held public hearings regarding the proposed closure on January 14, 21 and 22, 1997 in Holtsville, Roslyn and Glendale, New York, respectively.All three public hearing locations are accessible to people with disabilities.

After taking testimony and other evidence at the hearings, and considering comments from the public, the MTA defendants announced at the March 26, 1997 public LIRR Board meeting that ten stations would be closed, including the Center Moriches Station.The LIRR broadly disseminated this closing information to the public, including posting signs at the affected stations.

Nearly a year later, on March 16, 1998, ten stations, including the Center Moriches Station, were closed.

B. Hassan's Complaints to the DOT

In 1997, Hassan wrote several letters to the DOT and the FTA about the upcoming closure of the Center Moriches Station and its holding of public hearings about the proposal.Following an investigation, the Director of the FTA's Office of Civil Rights issued a decision concluding that the closing of the Station was not subject to the DOT regulations and explained that the DOT had no authority to interfere in local transit operations.Hassan requested that the Secretary of Transportation review and reconsider this decision, and added an allegation concerning his expulsion from the LIRR waiting room in January 1998.On March 30, 1998, the Director of the FTA's Office of Civil Rights issued a finding adhering to the earlier decision, and indicating that Hassan's allegations concerning his expulsion from the waiting room was a new complaint which was referred back to the FTA for investigation.

C.The Plaintiff's Complaint

As noted at the outset, Hassan initiated this lawsuit on March 16, 1998, and moved, by Order to Show Cause, for a TRO and preliminary injunction directing the following: (1)"That the Long Island Railroad resume or continue to stop trains and serve passengers at [the] Center Moriches Station"; and (2)"that LIRR stop harassment of John P. Hassan and stop expelling him from the waiting room of Penn Station in New York City."

The complaint does not delineate which factual allegations relate to which causes of action.In any event, Hassan asserts that the federal and MTA defendants have "colluded" to violate the ADA, and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the closing of the Station.He also maintains that he was denied access to the MTA's public hearings concerning the proposed closure.In this regard, he contends that the MTA defendants deliberately excluded him by conducting the public hearings in remote locations which were accessible only via "special transportation" that was provided at a location far from his home.

Hassan complains that with the closure of the Center Moriches Station, the only way he will be able to avail himself of LIRR train service to Manhattan for his medical treatments is by walking "four miles [from his home] to [the next closest station, the] Mastic[] Shirley Station ... That is an excruciating distance for me to walk."The plaintiff further asserts that he cannot afford to take a taxicab to and from the Mastic-Shirley Station.

The plaintiff also contends that the defendants' decision to close the Center Moriches Station was "strictly political," that they"skewed the passenger count" to support the decision to close it, and that they"have never made any effort to know the impact of their action on the neediest passengers."As he puts it, the defendants"are not authorized under the A.D.A.[] to redesign trains intentionall[y] to exclude passengers in need in areas with no other transportation but that is exactly what they deliberately connived to do in complicity and collaboration with all [defendants]."

As far as the Court can discern from a liberal reading of Hassan's papers, which are a mixture of both handwritten and single-spaced typed documents, he raises the following causes of action: (1)An ADA claim against the MTA and federal defendants for terminating service at the Center Moriches Station; (2)A First Amendment/Due Process Claim against the MTA and federal defendants for allegedly excluding him from the public hearing in ...