Moore v. Model Cities

This case was filed by Mariama Moore, an unrepresented (pro se) plaintiff, against Model Cities and Safe Space Shelter, along with staff members and homeless residents of the shelter. Ms. Moore alleged that during periods of homelessness beginning in April 2024, she stayed at a shelter operated by the defendants, where other residents stalked and harassed her because of her race, sex, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. She alleged that shelter staff ignored her complaints about this treatment. She further alleged that after she reported the conduct of other residents to the St. Paul Police Department, the defendants retaliated by restricting her access to the shelter for three days. Her claims were brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604, which prohibits making housing unavailable or denying a dwelling to a person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. She also referenced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though the court noted it was unclear which specific provisions she intended to invoke.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient ('facially plausible') claim for relief. Applying this standard, Judge Menendez accepted Ms. Moore's factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in her favor, but noted that conclusory allegations — general statements without supporting facts — are insufficient under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Because Ms. Moore is not a lawyer, the court applied the liberal construction standard applicable to pro se filings, also considering allegations in her original complaint.

The court identified two independent reasons why Ms. Moore failed to state a plausible FHA claim. First, her disparate treatment and retaliation allegations were non-specific and conclusory: she alleged that she complained to police and that the shelter later restricted her access, but provided no facts connecting the police report to the defendants' decision or linking any adverse action to her protected status. She also failed to allege facts showing she was treated less favorably than any other similarly situated person based on a protected characteristic. FHA disparate treatment claims are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII employment discrimination claims, requiring an allegation that the plaintiff was treated less favorably than others because of a protected characteristic. Second, the FHA is aimed at discriminatory practices by housing providers, not at the conduct of fellow residents. Because most of Ms. Moore's complaint focused on the behavior of other shelter residents rather than the shelter's own policies or actions, those allegations did not state an actionable FHA claim.

Also pending was Ms. Moore's Second Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 31), by which she sought to correct Safe Space Shelter's name and add all other residents and staff as defendants. Judge Menendez denied this motion, finding that the proposed amendment did not cure the deficiencies identified above. Ms. Moore also filed two motions seeking emergency injunctive relief — one captioned as a motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 34) but construed as a request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and another (Dkt. No. 36). The court denied both as moot in light of the dismissal.

The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Ms. Moore is not permanently barred from filing a new lawsuit on these facts if she is able to allege specific facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. The opinion was signed by United States District Judge Katherine Menendez on October 9, 2025.