Frances v. Accessible Space, Inc. et al

Filing 39

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/25/18 RECOMMENDING that Motion for a Restraining Order should be denied as moot 30 . F&R referred to District Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGELICA FRANCES,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1016-JAM-GGH

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ACCESSIBLE SPACE, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff sues in this case pro se and in forma pauperis alleging that defendants have, inter

18

alia, committed violations of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. section 3605, Section 504

19

of the Rehabilitation Act, and has raised various supplementary state claims, all involving her

20

allegations that from 2009 through the date of filing defendant failed to make repairs to the

21

apartment she rents from them to the detriment of health and in abrogation of her rights as a

22

disabled person. See First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 17.

23
24

On January 8, 2018 the plaintiff filed a motion for a restraining order seeking the
following:

25
26
27
28

I request the court order[] Accessible Space Inv. And their employees Not [sic] to:
1. Harass, intimidate, molest, attack strike, stalk, threaten, assault (sexually or
otherwise), hit, abuse, destroy personal property of, or disturb the peace of the person;
2. Contact the person, either directly or indirectly in any way, including but not limited
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

to in person, by telephone, in writing by pubic or private mail, by interoffice mail, by
e-mail, by text message, by fax, or by any other electronic means.
3. Any further communications with me pertaining to anything to do with the apartment
has to go through the court.
4. Not to enter my apartment without permission of the court, excluding emergencies
5. Not to Raise rent or try to event me or any of the tenants who want to address the
issues here.
To remain in effect until these proceedings are completed and appropriate resolution is
reached.
Id. at 12:20, 22.
After several failed attempts to identify a date on which all parties could be present in the
courtroom to address the issues underlying the motion, plaintiff notified the court’s Courtroom

10

Deputy, Jonathan Anderson, that she no longer resided in the apartment that is the subject of this

11

action. Defendants made the same assertion through a Declaration signed under penalty of

12

perjury by Dora Jacobson-Bauer, who was at all pertinent times the Housing Portfolio

13

Administrator for defendant Accessible Space, Inc., as a result of which she was familiar with the

14

facts regarding plaintiff’s tenure I the Sky Forest Acres apartments. ECF No. 38-1 at 21-24. In

15

that Declaration Ms. Jacobson-Bauer stated that “Ms. Frances voluntarily decided to end her

16

tenancy in March 2018, and moved out.”

17

DISCUSSION

18

If at any time during the course of litigation a plaintiff ceases to suffer or be threatened

19

with ‘an actual injury [that is] traceable to the defendant” and that is “likely to be redressed y a

20

favorable judicial decision” the matter is moot. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)(citing

21

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478 (1990); see also Johnson v. Moore, 948

22

F.2d 517, 522(9th Cir. 1991)(holding that when a prisoner seeking injunctive relief from a certain

23

prison’s regulations ceases to be housed in that facility the case or controversy ceases to exist and

24

the matter is moot).

25

The same situation as is found in Johnson pertains to plaintiff’s pending motion here. The

26

relief she sought with her motion was all related to actions surrounding her tenancy in defendants’

27

apartment house. Having ceased her residency, the actions against which plaintiff sought

28
2

1

protection by way of an injunction no longer threatened her and the matter became moot.

2

CONCLUSION

3

In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RECOMMENDED that;

4

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Restraining Order should be denied as moot;

5

2.

The Clerk should remove the gavel from ECF No. 30 as having been resolved by

6

this Order.

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

8

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

9

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

10

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

11

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

12

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

13

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

14

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

15

Dated: May 25, 2018

16
17

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3