Zerella v. Hathaway Court
Zerella v. Hathaway Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-114-DLB
CARMINE ZERELLA, JR. PLAINTIFF
v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HATHAWAY COURT, et al. DEFENDANTS
*** *** *** ***
Carmine Zerella, Jr., is a resident of Ludlow, Kentucky. Zerella has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1). The Court has granted Zerella pauper status in a separate Order. Asked what happened to cause him to file this lawsuit, Zerella states in his complaint that: Bed bug and roach infestation, pipes to kitchen & bathroom fill up with black water. And mgmt. has refused to maintain apartment for the last 4 years. Because of hatred & hated the way I talked & walked & color of my hair. They maintained other units on a daily basis. They are charging me $700 for spillage in kitchen and bathroom sinks. They have their own [Hun(?)] & do what they want. Apartments also have mold & asbestos. Please hear this case so I can get a place of my own. Thank you, your Honor.
(Doc. # 1 at 2). Zerella names as defendants the owner and three employees of “Hathaway Court.” That appears to be the name of the apartment complex where Zerella resides. See Zerella v. Hathaway Court, No. 2:23-CV-159-DCR (E.D. Ky. 2023) (Doc. # 6 therein). Zerella indicates that these problems have been ongoing since 2020. See (Doc. # 1 at 2-3). Zerella asserts violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. #1 at 4). For relief, he asks that he be “cleared of all charges, so | can get an apartment.” /d. at 8. Having review this matter, the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. While Zerella asserts that his constitutional rights have been violated, all of the persons he names as defendants are private citizens: they do not work for the government. Only persons who act “under color of law,” meaning at the behest of the government, can be sued for violations of rights under Section 1983. In contrast, actions taken by private citizens, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful, are not actionable under Section 1983. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
526 U.S. 40, 49-50(1999). Without some government involvement, a claim under Section 1983 will not lie. Bright v. Gallia Cnty., Ohio,
753 F.3d 639, 653(6th Cir. 2014). Put simply, Zerella’s allegations indicate a disagreement between a landlord and a tenant regarding maintenance in the apartment where he resides. These are issues generally governed by state law, matters routinely asserted by filing suit in the appropriate state court. Zerella may wish to consider that approach as an alternative avenue for relief. Accordingly and for the reasons stated, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) | Carmine Zerella, Jr.’s complaint (Doc. # 1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; and (2) | This matter is STRICKEN from the docket. This 12th day of July, 2024. LER . Signed By: wy Pavid L. Sums YY “=e + United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown