Sudduth v. Vasquez et al, No. 1:2008cv01106 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 1/26/2009. (rban, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ROY SUDDUTH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) l:08cvll06 (LMB/TCB) ) BRENDA VASQUEZ, et al^, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the pro se plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [2]. A litigant may commence an action in federal court in forma pauperis if he files an affidavit, is unable to pay the in good faith, costs of the lawsuit. stating that he See 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a). record suggests that plaintiff's affidavit submitted in bad faith. Accordingly, Nothing in the is inaccurate or the application will be GRANTED. However, pauperis if a court should dismiss an action filed in forma the action is "i) frivolous or malicious; to state a claim on which relief may be granted; monetary relief against a defendant who relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). by a pro se party must be held to the v. Pardus. is or iii) immune Of course, "liberally construed" Ct. citations omitted). 2197, 2200 (2007) Nevertheless, fails seeks from such pleadings filed and will not be same standards as those filed by lawyers. 127 S. ii) Erickson (internal quotations and whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted is determined by "the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. 12(b)(6)." (E.D. 1998). Sumner v. Thus, Tucker. 9 F. Supp. a court must accept all of pleaded allegations and view them in a the plaintiff. 1999). Smith v. Svdnor. To survive a 12(b)(6) state a claim, however, v. Twomblv. 642 P. Va. the complaint's well- light most F.3d 356, favorable to 361 (4th Cir. motion to dismiss for failure to a plaintiff must state a claim to relief that Atlantic Corp. 184 2d 641, Civ. state "enough facts is plausible on its 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 to face." Bell {2007) (internal citations omitted). I. Discussion Plaintiff describes himself as an African-American Muslim male who is disabled as a result of suffering from diabetes has 113 paragraph complaint, left him legally blind. In his plaintiff has sued 49 defendants, alleging that that they have violated his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Rehabilitation Act 42 U.S.C. § 12132; ("Rehabilitation Act"), the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3061, § 504 of the 29 U.S.C. et seq.; Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. § 794(a); and the Equal He seeks compensatory damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs. Plaintiff's allegations are wide-ranging and appear to arise out of several different transactions with the various defendants, all involving plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the conditions in Section 8 housing administered by some of the defendants. Plaintiff complains that his apartment was roach-infested and that when he asked to be moved to a different building, some of the defendants refused to place him in the building he wanted although they offered him space in a different building. He sues various City of Alexandria officials and employees for how they handled his complaints about the housing situation. He also sues certain legal services personnel who he apparently consulted for legal assistance in pursuing his housing problems, and he sues judges and staff of the Alexandria General District Court because they did not let him proceed in forma pauperis and had him evicted from the courthouse. Because plaintiff named so many different defendants and raised so many different issues, his complaint will be analyzed by each group of defendants rather than by count. A. Crestview Commons Defendants1 Plaintiff claims that the Crestview Commons Defendants violated his rights under the Fair Housing Act, the ADA, the 1 The nine Crestview Commons Defendants are Brenda Vasquez, Carmen Bonilla, Robert C. Kettler, Marcus Mitchell, Zarrick Veney, Hernando Rodriguez, Glen White, Crestview Commons doing business as Fields of Landmark, and KSI Management Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants are employed by KSI Management Inc. Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act by subjecting him to unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, choice, refusing to move him to the apartment and ignoring his condition of his disability. apartment, Compl. HH 30, Housing Act provides against any person sale or rental" handicap. that in See 42 U.S.C. on account it the terms, § of his the religion, or "[t]o discriminate conditions, a person's 3604 race, about Section 3604 of the Fair is unlawful race, (b)&(£). facie case of or privileges of religion, or A plaintiff may discrimination by showing that challenged practice was motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a discriminatory impact. 736 written complaints 43-44. because of demonstrate a prima the numerous complex of his F.2d 983, 986 alleged that he (4th Cir. Betsey v. 1984). Creek Assocs.. Although plaintiff has is African-American, not alleged facts to support his Turtle Muslim, claim that and disabled, the actions of he has the Crestview Commons Defendants were motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a disparate allegations support, Civ. the § P. of impact. Plaintiff's discriminatory conduct, conclusory without any factual cannot withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant 12(b)(6). See Twomblv. 127 S. Ct. claims will be dismissed pursuant to 28 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state at 1974. U.S.C. a claim. to Fed. R. Accordingly, Plaintiff also alleges that the Crestview Commons Defendants violated his rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act byexcluding him from their services, programs, and activities and failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations, appear to consist of having an apartment and all other vermin." Compl. U 98. which "free from all roaches Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to administer their services to him in a setting appropriate for his Compl. needs. The H 104. Fourth Circuit applies a similar analysis to claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. F.3d 462, 468 (4th Cir. 1999). Baird v. A plaintiff either statute must allege that 1) programs, benefits of or activities, such services, and 3) programs, See Constantine v. George Mason Univ.. 411 F.3d at 468. programs burden of The Acts F.3d 474, 498 differ somewhat showing that his disability in the challenged action. Baird. 192 Rehabilitation Act applies to programs financial assistance, is (4th Cir. in that on the basis & Visitors of 2005); Baird. the ADA applies and a plaintiff has 192 to the "played a motivating role" F.3d at 468-69. that receive and a plaintiff must show that discrimination occurred he he was denied the Rectors and services of a public entity, 2) of the public or activities, of his disability. 192 seeking relief under he has a disability, otherwise qualified to receive the benefits services, Rose, "solely by reason of" his The federal the disability. Id. In the instant complaint, service, program, plaintiff does not specify which or activity the Crestview Commons Defendants denied him the benefits of because of his disability. he states that these defendants "illegally excludfed] disabled Plaintiff from all of their services, activities." Compl. H 98. However, Instead, this programs, and it appears from the complaint that plaintiff was able to lease an apartment from the Crestview Commons Defendants from December 2006 through September 2007. Compl. H 26. If plaintiff's claim is based on the Crestview Commons Defendants' apartment, he has decision not to move him into a new not pled any facts to support the allegation that his disability was a motivating factor or the sole reason for the Crestview Commons Defendants' Therefore, plaintiff has failed to state a claim under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § decision not to move him. and these claims will be dismissed 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff's allegations under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also fail because the Fourteenth Amendment only imposes limits on state action and does not apply to conduct of private parties, Brentwood Acad. 288, 295 (2001). v. Term. such as these defendants. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n. See 531 U.S. State action exists if there is such a "close nexus between the State and the challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." See id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a nexus between the Crestview Commons Defendants and the state to support a finding that the Crestview Common Defendants were engaged in state action for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, his § 1983 claims for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment will be dismissed for B. failure to state a claim. Redevelopment Defendants2 Plaintiff alleges that the Redevelopment Defendants violated his rights under the Fair Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. His defendants are identical Commons Defendants. the ADA, the Equal Protection Clause of the factual allegations against to those alleged against Thus, the Crestview for the reasons stated above, failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, these he has the ADA, or and these claims will be dismissed. Plaintiff has also brought claims against the Redevelopment Defendants under Amendment rights. § 1983 Here, for violations of his Fourteenth the state action requirement is met because plaintiff has sued the Alexandria Redevelopment and 2 The ten Redevelopment Defendants are William Dearman, Elijah Johnson, Terrence D. Langford, Cynthia Thompson, Kimberly Wade, TaLori Johnson, Roy Triese, William D. Euille, the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the City of Alexandria. Plaintiff states that the individual defendants are employed by the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the City of Alexandria. Housing Authority and the City of Alexandria and alleges of the individual defendants entities. of his law. in this group are employees of See Brentwood Acad.. claim under § 1983, at 295. these To state a that he was deprived federal rights by a person acting under the color of state See, e.g.. West v. Atkins. 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To make a plaintiff must allege that "he been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that of 531 U.S. a plaintiff must allege out an equal protection claim, has that all the unequal treatment was the result intentional or purposeful discrimination." Garraghtv. 239 alleges that he F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. is African-American, failed to allege any facts Morrison v. 2001). Muslim, Although plaintiff and disabled, showing that he was differently from others who are treated similarly situated or that Redevelopment Defendants engaged in intentional discrimination. U.S.C. § This he has the or purposeful claim will also be dismissed pursuant to 28 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. r C. Next, Foxwoods Defendants3 plaintiff alleges violated his that the Foxwoods Defendants rights under the Fair Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, the and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts 3 The five Foxwoods Defendants are Ameurfina Braga, Marcelo Jordan, Evelyn Gleason, Harold Mangold, and Scott Management Inc. Plaintiff states that all of the individual Foxwood Defendants are employed by Scott Management Inc. 8 supporting his claim that he was discriminated against because of his religion or disability or that he was denied the benefits of the Foxwoods Defendants' services, the basis of his disability. Betsey. 736 P.2d at 986. programs, or activities, See Constantine. Therefore, his on 411 F.3d at 498; claims under the Fair Housing Act for discrimination on the basis of his religion and disability and his claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act must be dismissed. Plaintiff's Fair Housing Act claim alleging race discrimination also fails. "in the terms, conditions, on a person's race, (b)&(f). Section 3604 prohibits discrimination or privileges of sale or rental" based religion, or handicap. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604 A plaintiff may demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that the challenged practice was motivated by a discriminatory purpose or had a discriminatory impact. Betsey. 736 F.2d at 986. Plaintiff claims that the Foxwoods Defendants would not accept his Section 8 Housing Voucher because of his race. In his complaint, that he called Ameurfina Braga on January 6, plaintiff alleged 2007 and asked whether apartments were available at the Foxwood Place Apartments. Compl. t 50. Plaintiff states that Braga told him in that conversation that Foxwood Place Apartments accepted Section 8 Housing Vouchers. Compl. H 51. However, claims that when he arrived to view an apartment, plaintiff Braga and Marcelo Jordan realized he was African-American and told him they did not accept Section 8 Housing Vouchers and did not have two bedroom apartments available. asserts that on January 9, Compl. 2007, he U 52. Plaintiff further called Evelyn Gleason, property manager for Scott Management Incorporated, the and she confirmed that she would not accept a Section 8 Voucher for the Foxwood Place Apartments, but would accept a voucher for their low income project in Falls Church, Even accepting its liberally, facts Virginia. Compl. responsibility to construe pro the Court finds to support his UH 55-57. se complaints that plaintiff has not pled sufficient allegation that the Foxwoods Defendants' decision not to show or rent an apartment at the Foxwood Place Apartments was motivated by race discrimination rather than financial ineligibility. any specific conduct as In addition, plaintiff to Harold Mangold, failed to allege so the claims against him will be dismissed for this additional reason. Plaintiff also sues these defendants under § violations of his rights under the Equal However, here, 1983 for Protection Clause. as with the Crestview Commons Defendants, the plaintiff has failed to plead a sufficient nexus between the state and the Foxwoods Defendants to support a finding that the Foxwoods Defendants were engaged in state action. these claims will also be dismissed. U.S. at 295. 10 Therefore, See Brentwood Acad., 531 D. Legal Services Defendants4 Plaintiff alleges that the Legal Service Defendants violated his rights under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when, to his request for legal assistance, legal forms to fill out, in response they merely gave him various but refused to provide him with assistance or reasonable help in filling out the forms. If 60-66. Title II of the ADA "forbids public entities . from excluding disabled persons from programs, benefits 'by reason of 411 F.3d at 4 88. their disabilities." . . or See Constantine. A public entity is statutorily defined as state or local governments and their departments, instrumentalities. services, Compl. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). agencies, and Plaintiff has failed to allege that Legal Services of Northern Virginia is a public entity as defined by the ADA, and, will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. to state thus, his claims under ADA § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure a claim. Next, plaintiff alleges that the Legal Services Defendants violated his rights under the Rehabilitation Act, program or activity that receives federal funds which forbids a from denying the benefits of the program to a disabled person "solely by the 4 The four Legal Service Defendants are John P. Ellis, Richard V. Minionis, Nicole M. Bacon, and Legal Services of Northern Virginia. Plaintiff asserts that the individual defendants are employed by Legal Services of Northern Virginia. Plaintiff also refers to these defendants as the Legal Aid Defendants. See Compl. f 60. 11 reason of 794(a). ... his basis" Here, of his disability. See 29 U.S.C. § plaintiff alleges that the Legal Services Defendants receive federal funds and refused to provide him with meaningful assistance because of his race, disability. Compl. tfl 63, 101. However, religion, or plaintiff has not clearly alleged that he was excluded from receiving the benefits of the Legal Services Defendants' because of his disability. programs or services solely Although plaintiff states that he was unable to fill out the legal forms given to him by these defendants because they would not assist him or provide reasonable accommodations for him, he does not allege that his inability to fill out the forms was the sole reason, of the reason, that the Legal Services Defendants declined to assist him with his legal matters. Therefore, or any part See Compl. HI 60-66. he has failed to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. Moreover, any claims against the individual defendants must be dismissed because individuals may not be held liable under the Rehabilitation Act. Calloway v. 543, 557 See 29 U.S.C. Boro of Glassboro Dep't of Police. (D.N.J. 2000) 89 F. § 794(a); Supp. 2d (collecting cases finding no individual liability under the Rehabilitation Act). Plaintiff also alleges that the Legal Service Defendants violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As discussed above, the Fourteenth Amendment only imposes limits on state action and does not apply 12 to conduct of private parties. 295. See Brentwood Acad.. 531 U.S. at Plaintiff has not alleged a sufficient nexus between the Legal Services Defendants and the state to support a finding that the conduct of the Legal Service Defendants constitutes state action. to 28 See id. U.S.C. E. Thus, these claims will be dismissed pursuant 1915(e)(2)(B){ii) for failure to state a claim. General District Court Defendants5 Plaintiff also alleges Defendants that (UGDC Defendants") the Rehabilitation Act, the General District Court violated his rights under the ADA, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff's claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act arise from incidents District Court. that occurred at the Alexandria General Compl. the Rehabilitation Act, disabled, public H 67. To state a claim under the ADA or a plaintiff must allege was otherwise eligible to receive service, program or activity, participation in the programs, but was service, that he is the benefits of a excluded from or activity due to his 5 The seven General District Court Defendants are Hope Mayfield, Moore, Barbara Delander, Hon. Donald M. Margaret N. Haddock, Jr., French, Hon. Becky J. the Alexandria Sheriff's Department, and the Alexandria, Virginia General District Court. Plaintiff states that the individual employees are employed by the City of Alexandria and the Alexandria, Virginia General District Court. These defendants include two sitting General District Court judges, Moore and Haddock, against whom plaintiff has alleged no specific conduct, and who, on this record would be immune from suit. See Mireles v. Waco. 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman. 435 U.S. 349, 360-64 (1978). 13 disability. claims clerks, See Constantine. that he attempted to 411 F.3d at 498. file legal Here, plaintiff forms with two court defendants Hope Mayfield and Barbara Delander, rejected his forms. Compl. UH 67-69. two defendants gave him legal forms He then alleges that these with small print, to provide him with reasonable accommodations fill out the forms. Compl. he was unable to complete of the defendants' as he must do in order forms were the failure Rehabilitation Act. f 71. but they but refused to allow him to Plaintiff does not allege that forms and file his lawsuit because to provide reasonable accommodations, to state a claim under Instead, completed he was the ADA or the plaintiff alleges unable to file his that after his lawsuit because the defendants would not accept a fee waiver form from him because of an issue related to his residency. Compl. 72-75. failed to allege Given these allegations, that he was denied access disability, § plaintiff has flf 67-68, to the courts because of his and these claims will be dismissed pursuant to 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii) . In addition, plaintiff brings a claim under § 1983 alleging that his Equal Protection rights were violated because he was discriminated against on the basis of his race, disability. that two of or This claim is presumably based on his allegation the individual GDC defendants legal pleadings because of his However, religion, plaintiff has race, religion, failed to provide 14 refused to accept his any or disability. factual support for his claim that he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals, claim will be dismissed for failure to and this state a claim. Plaintiff also brings a claim under § 1983 requesting that the Court enter an order declaring unconstitutional the General District Court and the City of Alexandria's policy of refusing to allow indigent, non-residents of forma pauperis. must have Article To survive dismissal of III declaratory relief, Cir. 95 (1983); 1995). he is this standing to assert his claim, Simmons V. claim. To obtain See City of Los Angeles v. Poe. 47 F.3d 1370, 1382-83 Because plaintiff has not alleged facts Lyons, (4th showing that likely to suffer future violations of his constitutional rights as a result of this policy, judgment will also be dismissed. In addition, the plaintiff this claim for a declaratory See Lyons, plaintiff alleges that "unlawfully remove[d]" Alexandria Sheriff's Department. 491 U.S. alleged specific facts as at 102-03. the GDC Defendants had from the Courthouse by the Comp. U 76. Plaintiff names the Alexandria Sheriff's Department as a defendant, but has not to this defendant or given any indication as to why his removal was has plaintiff a plaintiff must show a substantial likelihood of future injury. 461 U.S. the Commonwealth to proceed in "unlawful." Therefore, failed to state a claim against the Alexandria Sheriff's Department, and any claims against dismissed. 15 this defendant will be he F. Alexandria Code Enforcement Defendants6 and the HDD Defendants7 Plaintiff alleges that the Alexandria Code Enforcement Defendants and the HUD Defendants violated his rights under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by ignoring his written complaints about the condition of his apartment because of his disability. religion, or Plaintiff provides no factual support whatsoever for these allegations. Therefore, Code Enforcement Defendants dismissed for failure to 6. race, his claims against the Alexandria and the HUD Defendants will be state a claim. Human Rights Defendants8 Plaintiff claims that the Human Rights Defendants violated his rights under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to permit him to file formal complaints against the Crestview 6 The six Code Enforcement Defendants are John Catlett, Jannine Pennell, Robert Rodriguez, Russell Furr, Timothy Lawmaster, and the City of the Alexandria Office of Building and Fire Code Administration. Plaintiff states that the individual defendants are employed by the City of Alexandria Office of Building and Fire Code Administration. 7 The four HUD Defendants are Steven Preston, Ross Conlan, Lee A. Palman, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The plaintiff states that the individual defendants are employed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 8 The four Human Rights Defendants are Jean Kelleher Niebauer, Paula A. Avila-Guillen, David Miller, and the City of Alexandria Office of Human Rights. The plaintiff asserts that the individual defendants are employed by the City of Alexandria Office of Human Rights. 16 Commons Defendants and the Redevelopment Defendants 2007 because of his race, also alleges that religion, these defendants on March 17, or disability. Plaintiff illegally refused to accept his complaints against the General District Court Defendants. recited above, plaintiff must provide more than conclusory allegations to survive a 12(b)(6) Accordingly, As motion to dismiss. the plaintiff's claims against the Human Rights Defendants will be dismissed in their entirety. II. Conclusion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. P. 8, Moreover, his complaint fails to adhere to Fed. which requires and direct." that each allegation be For these reasons, in its entirety. However, "simple, R. Civ. concise, the complaint must be dismissed as a pro se party, plaintiff will be given leave to amend his complaint. If plaintiff chooses to re-file any of the claims in this complaint, he should be mindful of Fed. R. Civ. mandates that when a party files a pleading, best of his knowledge and belief that have evidentiary support or ... P. 11, which he certifies to the "the factual contentions will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation 17 or discovery."9 If a party violates Rule 11, impose sanctions on that party. amended complaint must be date of Fed. R. Civ. filed within twenty the Court may P. 11(c). (20) Any days of the this Memorandum Opinion. A separate order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued with this opinion. Entered this fjfp Alexandria, day of January, 2009. Virginia /s/ Leonie M. Brinkefta United States District Judge 9 Plaintiff's damage claims include a meritless request for attorney's fees. As a pro se entitled to attorney's 385, 398-99 (4th Cir. fees. litigant, See, 2003). 18 e.g.. the plaintiff Bond v. Blum, is not 317 F.3d
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
