Screeton v. Lindsey Management Co

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION RALPH BYRD SCREETON PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:24-CV-00002-BRW LINDSEY MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Because Plaintiff does not have the funds to pay a filing fee, his Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED. However, for the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED. A district court has the authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to state a claim.1 Plaintiff filed a § 1983 complaint against Defendants seeking $18,000,000 in damages. Defendants, who own and manage an apartment complex where he lived, are not state actors. To state a claim for relief under section 1983, the complaint must allege that a person acting under the color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional or statutory right.2 Merely private conduct is not within the reach of section 1983.3 For private conduct to fall under section 1983, “a private actor must be a ‘willful participant in joint activity with the State’ in denying plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”4 “A plaintiff ‘must allege, at the very least, that there was a 1 See Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1991) 2 American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). — 3 — Id. at 50 . 4 Magee v. Trustees of Hamline University, Minn., 747 F.3d 532, 536 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Dossett v. First Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 947 (8th Cir. 2005)). mutual understanding, or a meeting of the minds, between the private party and state actor.’”5 Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that Defendants are state actors. Plaintiff also alleges Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) violations. A few examples: he contends that someone asked for a credit report; one of Defendants’ employees said the “‘gays’ are back to turn in their application”; Defendants did not make repairs that Plaintiff requested or respond to his complaints about other residents; and Plaintiff was playing “Jewish music” (his description, not Defendants’) too loud in the workout room.6 As to the alleged comment about “the gays,” “[d]irect evidence [of disparate treatment under the FHA] does not include stray remarks in the workplace, statements by nondecisionmakers, or statements by decisionmakers unrelated to the decisional process itself.”7 Additionally, none of the other allegations support a claim for FHA violations. Rather, Plaintiff simply does not appear to get along with his former landlord. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2024. Billy Roy Wilson__________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 Pendleton v. St. Louis County, 178 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted). 6 Doc. No. 2. 7 Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823, 831 (8th Cir. 2010).