Fang L Huang v. Craig Miller et al

Filing 7

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The only federal claim asserted by plaintiff is that defendants violated 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 et seq. vis a vis their alleged violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 26105 (failure to repair premises and disclose defects). However, plaintiff has not pointed to any federal civil right that defendants may have violated. Nor has plaintiff cited a ny authority suggesting that a state actor's general failure to provide a service amounts to a civil rights violation. Accordingly, because the complaint does not appear to assert a federal question pursuant to Section 1983, this Court appears to lack jurisdiction to entertain this action. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before 3/22/2012, why the instant action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-943 CAS (AJWx)

Title

FANG L. HUANG v. CRAIG MILLER; ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 2, 2012

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

CATHERINE JEANG
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2012, pro se plaintiff Fang L. Huang filed a complaint against
Craig Miller, Jennifer Hecox, G & K Management Co., Inc., and Los Angeles County
Department of Health, alleging four claims for relief, styled as: (1) violation of the
implied warranty of habitability pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1941.1; (2) failure to
provide public records in violation of Cal. Gov. Code §§ 6253 et seq.; (3) failure to repair
premises in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 26103 et seq.; and (4) violations of
Cal. Gov. Code §11126(a), Cal. Health & Safety Code § 26105, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985, and 1986. Plaintiff alleges subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that her landlord has failed to fix leaks
and stop the infiltration of toxic materials into her apartment, and government health
inspectors have failed to provide her with the results of their inspections.
II.

DISCUSSION

A district court has federal question jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For an action
to “arise under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, “a right or
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-943 CAS (AJWx)

Date

Title

March 2, 2012

FANG L. HUANG v. CRAIG MILLER; ET AL.

immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element,
and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Gully v. First National Bank in
Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). A federal question “must be disclosed upon the face
of the complaint, unaided by the answer.” Id. at 113; see also Phillips Petroleum Co. v.
Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127–28 (1974).
Here, the only federal claim asserted by plaintiff is that defendants violated 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 et seq. vis a vis their alleged violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code
§ 26105 (failure to repair premises and disclose defects). However, plaintiff has not
pointed to any federal civil right that defendants may have violated.1 Liley v. State of
Missouri, 920 F. Supp. 1035, 1044 (E.D. Mo. 1996) (“Violations of state laws do not by
themselves state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); Ebmeier v. Stump, 70 F.3d 1012,
1013 (8th Cir. 1995) (same). Nor has plaintiff cited any authority suggesting that a state
actor’s general failure to provide a service amounts to a civil rights violation.2
Accordingly, because the complaint does not appear to assert a federal question pursuant
to § 1983, this Court appears to lack jurisdiction to entertain this action.

1

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated Cal. Gov. Code § 11126(a).
However, that section merely discusses a state body’s ability to hold closed sessions to
consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of a
public employee. Cal. Gov. Code § 11126(a). That section has no relevance as to
plaintiff’s alleged § 1983 violation.
2

Construed most liberally, plaintiff asserts her §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 as “statecreated danger” claims under the Constitution. The “state-created danger” theory is one
of two exceptions to the rule that the Constitution does not confer an affirmative right to
governmental aid. Ye v. United States, 484 F.3d 634, 636 (9th Cir. 2007). Under the
state-created danger theory, a governmental actor can be liable to an individual for
creating a danger that renders a citizen more vulnerable to the danger had the state not
acted at all. Id. at 638. Even under this exception, however, an affirmative act, rather
than mere inaction, is required. Id. Here, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the results of a health inspection—not that they committed an affirmative act.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-943 CAS (AJWx)

Title

FANG L. HUANG v. CRAIG MILLER; ET AL.

III.

Date

March 2, 2012

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to SHOW
CAUSE on or before March 22, 2012, why the instant action should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3