Marinoff v. US DEPT. OF HUD, 93 Civ. 8374 (KMW).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
| Writing for the Court | KIMBA M. WOOD |
| Citation | 892 F. Supp. 493 |
| Parties | Roslyn C. MARINOFF, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 93 Civ. 8374 (KMW).,93 Civ. 8374 (KMW). |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1995 |
892 F. Supp. 493
Roslyn C. MARINOFF, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant.
No. 93 Civ. 8374 (KMW).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
April 20, 1995.
Roslyn G. Marinoff, New York City, pro se.
OPINION & ORDER
KIMBA M. WOOD, District Judge.
On September 19, 1994, Magistrate Judge Roberts issued the attached Report and Recommendation, recommending that I dismiss plaintiff's claim against defendant for failing to state a cause of action under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. On September 29, 1994, plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation that I dismiss plaintiff's claim. On October 28, 1994, the court gave plaintiff an opportunity to file supplemental objections to the Report, and on December 15, 1994, plaintiff submitted supplemental materials to the court. After a de novo review of the Report and of plaintiff's objections, I adopt Magistrate Judge Roberts' Report in its entirety, and grant defendant's motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBERTS, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff commenced this action pro se pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, 3631 (1988),1 alleging that the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") failed to properly investigate plaintiff's allegations of discrimination and retaliation by the housing project in which she lives, and requesting that the court direct HUD to conduct a proper investigation. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff lives in the Lincoln Guild apartment building ("Lincoln Guild") in Manhattan, which, according to the complaint, is a federally assisted urban renewal project under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949. Complaint ¶ 4. She contends that Lincoln Guild has discriminated against blacks and hispanics with respect to the allocation of apartments. Complaint ¶¶ 8, 10. Plaintiff filed a complaint with HUD in December 1991. Complaint ¶ 2. HUD closed plaintiff's complaint on March 11, 1992, stating that because plaintiff had "failed to identify a discriminatory act which has occurred within
On December 7, 1993, plaintiff filed the instant complaint, stating that she:
filed a discrimination claim with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to remedy the violations of the Fair Housing Act going on at the Housing Project where she lives. (HUD) had a duty to give this case a proper investigation but they did not and that is why it is before your Court today.
The Plaintiff's request to the Court is to have a proper investigation carried out regarding her discrimination allegations * * * and for affirmative steps to be taken to correct them.
And for the Court to take affirmative steps to stop the serious forms of retaliation targeted at the complainant for her involvement in bringing forth this serious discrimination case * * * which under the Fair Housing Act both these charges should have been protected and investigated by HUD * * * But were not.
Complaint ¶¶ 16-18.
On June 30, 1994, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and submitted a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim ("Def.Mem."). Defendant based its motion to dismiss on the following grounds: 1) plaintiff has no implied or express right of action against HUD; and 2) HUD's determination is not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (1988). Def. Mem. at 5-10.
On August 26, 1994, plaintiff submitted a memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, restating her allegations of an inadequate investigation by HUD and improper treatment by HUD employees. Pl. Mem. at 1-3. Plaintiff also submitted copies of letters written to HUD officials to document her allegations of mistreatment by HUD employees. See Letter from Plaintiff to Burton Bloomberg, Acting Regional HUD Administrator, of July 15, 1994 (attached to Pl. Mem.). Defendant responded by letter on September 8, 1994, stating that because plaintiff's memorandum failed to address any of the issues raised in defendant's motion to dismiss, defendant would rely on the arguments set forth in its previous submission to the court. Defendant's September 8, 1994 Letter in Response to Plaintiff's Memorandum Opposing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Def. Letter") at 1.
DISCUSSION
The FHA
The FHA makes it unlawful, in connection with the sale, rental or financing of housing, to discriminate against a person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, national origin, or familial status. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The FHA also makes it unlawful to intimidate or threaten a person who is exercising her rights under the FHA. Id. § 3617.
A person who has been injured by a discriminatory housing practice may file a complaint with the Secretary of HUD (the "Secretary") "not later than one year after an alleged discriminatory housing practice has occurred or terminated * * *." Id. § 3610(a)(1)(A)(i). Section 3610 of the FHA states in relevant part:
The Secretary shall, within 100 days after the filing of the complaint * * *, determine based on the facts whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, unless it is impracticable to do so * * *. If the Secretary is unable to make the determination within 100 days after the filing of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mhany Mgmt. Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 05–CV–2301 (ADS)(WDW).
...Jones v. Office of Comptroller of Currency, 983 F.Supp. 197, 202–03 (D.D.C.1997) (same); Marinoff v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 892 F.Supp. 493, 496 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (same), affd,78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.1996); Pleune v. Pierce, 697 F.Supp. 113, 119 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (same). However, in the i......
-
Mhany Mgmt. Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 05-CV-2301 (ADS) (WDW)
...v. Office of Comptroller of Currency, 983 F. Supp. 197, 202-03 (D.D.C. 1997) (same); Marinoff v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 892 F. Supp. 493, 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (same), aff'd, 78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996); Pleune v. Pierce, 697 F. Supp. 113, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (same). However, in th......
-
Mackenzie v. Castro, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-0752-D
...judicial review of HUD's closure of its investigation of 1600 Pacific's FHA complaint. See Marinoff v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 892 F.Supp. 493, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("Because § 3613(a)(2) allows a complainant to proceed in federal court against the perpetrator of the discriminatory......
-
Morales v. Related Mgmt. Co., 13-CV-8191 (KMK)
...and accordingly, "there is clearly no express right of action pursuant to the FHA." Marinoff v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 892 F. Supp. 493, 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff'd 78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (adopting the reasoning of the district court's opinion and the magistrate ju......
-
Disparate Limbo: How Administrative Law Erased Antidiscrimination.
...APA claim because the plaintiff had "an adequate alternative remedy" elsewhere); Marinoff v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 892 F. Supp. 493,497 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (dismissing the plaintiff's APA claim because the "plaintiff has a reasonable alternative and therefore review under APA is ......