Smith et al v. Westwood Vistas et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/30/18 GRANTING 6 7 Motions to Proceed IFP; Plaintiffs have 30 days to file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions given above. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICIA LYNN SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. 2:18-cv-00473 JAM AC PS

v.

ORDER

14

WESTWOOD VISTAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the

18

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiffs have now submitted their amended requests for

19

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and have submitted the affidavits required by that

20

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motions to proceed IFP will be granted.

21
22

I. SCREENING
The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally

23

“frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

24

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

25

Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting

26

the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”).

27

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-

28

policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.
1

1

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and

2

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this

3

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled

4

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief

5

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in

7

the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200),

8

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

9

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

10

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

11

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they

12

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the

13

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von

14

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.

15

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

16

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint

17

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court

18

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must

19

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a

20

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

21

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

22

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,

23

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice

24

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

25

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

26

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to

27

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has

28

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
2

1

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

2

678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity

3

to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.

4

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in

5

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).

6

A. The Complaint

7

Plaintiffs bring suit against Westwood Vistas, FPI Management, Bonnie Darrah, and

8

Ashley Gunn for (1) “breach of contract;” (2) “wrongful eviction;” (3) “fair housing violation;”

9

and (4) “fraud.”1 ECF No. 1 at 2, 5-12. Plaintiffs assert 24 C.F.R. § 982.453 as the basis for

10

federal court jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiffs allege that defendants “violated any

11

obligation under the HAP contract,” based on a wrongful eviction. Id. at 3-5. Plaintiffs seeks

12

relief in the form of “punitive damages in the amount of $475,500[,]” “pain/suffer, emotional

13

stress, beauty and health services, [and] housing voucher equal amount for another first time

14

residential home.” Id. at 13-14.

15

B. Analysis

16

The complaint, in its present form, does not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.

17

Plaintiffs rely on 24 C.F.R. § 982.453, but this housing regulation provides for breach of contract

18

claims to brought against landlords by public housing authorities, not by tenants, for violations of

19

federal housing standards in the HAP context. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.453(b) (“The PHA rights and

20

remedies against the owner under the HAP contract include recovery of overpayments, abatement

21

or other reduction of housing assistance payments, termination of housing assistance payments,

22

and termination of the HAP contract.”). The only other possible grounds for jurisdiction that the

23

court can discern is plaintiffs’ assertion of a cause of action for a “fair housing violation” under

24

42 U.S.C. § 1437f. ECF No. 1 at 12. However, plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief under this

25

statute. “Federal courts have consistently held that no private right of action arises under 42

26

1

27
28

The complaint’s caption asserts five causes of action for breach of contract, breach of good
cause, emotional stress, wrongful eviction, and trespass. See ECF No. 1 at 1. However, the body
of the complaint, alleges different grounds for recovery. See ECF No. 5-12. The court will
address only claims argued in the body of the complaint.
3

1

U.S.C. § 1437f, the statute that authorizes housing assistance payments.” Volis v. City of Los

2

Angeles Hous. Auth., No. CV1301397MMMSPX, 2014 WL 12704885, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7,

3

2014) (citations omitted).

4

Accordingly, the complaint does not establish this court’s jurisdiction. Rather than

5

recommending dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide plaintiffs an opportunity to

6

amend their complaint to allege a proper basis for jurisdiction and facts supporting a cognizable

7

cause of action.

8
9

II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT
If plaintiffs choose to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts

10

establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain

11

statement of plaintiffs’ claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially

12

numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each

13

paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the

14

complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where

15

possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their

16

complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor

17

(Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

18

Plaintiffs must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiffs must avoid

19

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what

20

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor

21

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should

22

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendants legally wronged the plaintiffs.

23

The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is

24

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)

25

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what

26

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended

27

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’

28

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not
4

1

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for

2

what.” Id. at 1179.

3

Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s

4

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without

5

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

6

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline

7

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint

8

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &

9

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

10

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

11

alleged.

12

III. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY

13

It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. Cases involving evictions and

14

landlord/tenant disputes are usually handled in state court. To proceed in this court, a complaint

15

must establish federal jurisdiction. The federal regulation that you cite as a basis for jurisdiction,

16

24 C.F.R. § 982.453, allows public housing authorities to sue property owners for breach of HAP

17

contracts. It does not allow tenants to bring breach of contract claims. The federal statute that

18

you cite, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, also does not provide for lawsuits by tenants. Because the complaint

19

as written does not establish federal jurisdiction, it will not be served on defendants. Your

20

lawsuit cannot proceed unless you fix the problems with your complaint.

21

You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that provides a proper basis

22

for federal jurisdiction. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms

23

what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations

24

impacted each plaintiff. Without this information, the court cannot tell what legal claims you are

25

trying to bring against the defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the

26

deadline, the undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed.

27

////

28

////
5

1
2

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. Plaintiffs’ requests to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 7) are GRANTED;

4

2. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that

5

complies with the instructions given above. If plaintiffs fail to timely comply with this

6

order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed.

7

DATED: November 30, 2018

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6