1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG EDMONDS, Case No. 2:25-cv-3721-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MUTUAL HOUSING, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Craig Edmonds (“plaintiff”) brings this action against defendants Mutual Housing, 18 Lavender Courtyard Apartments, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, the United 19 States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), Marlene Sanchez, Lutheran 20 Social Services, and Brenda Santiago. He alleges that defendants have violated his rights under 21 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to provide remote gate access at the 22 property where he lives. ECF No. 8 at 1-2. Plaintiff’s claims are articulated across several 23 different filings, ECF Nos. 1, 4, 6, & 7, including in an amended complaint, ECF No. 8, that, 24 despite its title, also appears to be a supplement to the original complaint. Under the local rules, a 25 complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on reference to ancillary documents. See 26 Local Rule 220. Accordingly, I will dismiss plaintiff’s initial complaint, which I construe as the 27 operative complaint in this action, and give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint 28 that contains all his claims in a single document. Additionally, as explained below, at least one of 1 the parties sued is not a viable defendant. Plaintiff may address this in any amended complaint he 2 submits. 3 In light of the foregoing, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive 4 relief, ECF No. 9, be denied. His request for calendar preference and expedited proceedings, 5 ECF No. 3, is also denied. Finally, I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 6 pauperis. ECF No. 2. This grant moots his request for ruling on his in forma pauperis status, 7 contained in ECF No. 9. 8 Screening and Pleading Requirements 9 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 10 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 11 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 12 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 13 relief. Id. 14 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 16 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 17 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 18 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 19 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 20 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 21 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 22 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 23 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 24 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 25 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 26 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 27 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 28 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 1 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 2 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 Analysis 4 Plaintiff’s claims are not, as they must be, contained in a single complaint. Instead, they 5 are filed across an initial complaint and several supplements. ECF Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, & 8. Under 6 this district’s local rules, all claims must be included in a single document, without reference to or 7 reliance on other, supplemental filings. See Local Rule 220. Accordingly, I will dismiss the 8 complaint so that plaintiff may include all his claims in a single, amended complaint. 9 Additionally, plaintiff is advised that HUD is not a viable defendant in an ADA action. 10 See Drevaleva v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 835 F. App’x 221, 223 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The district 11 court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s claim that she was discriminated against in violation of the 12 Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’) because the federal government is excluded from the 13 coverage of the ADA.”). Plaintiff has also sued numerous defendants in connection with his 14 claim; he is advised that the proper defendant in an ADA action is the public entity responsible 15 for the discrimination alleged. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153 (2006). Finally, 16 plaintiff should explain, in any amended complaint he files, how each defendant is responsible for 17 the lack of a remote gate. The various pleadings that currently comprise the complaint do not 18 effectively identify what responsibility each of the named defendants had in this failing. 19 I will give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that remedies these 20 deficiencies. Any amended complaint will entirely supersede the initial one and must be 21 complete in itself. It should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and be filed within thirty 22 days of this order’s entry. 23 Motion to Expedite 24 Plaintiff’s motion to expedite proceedings, ECF No. 3, is denied. He argues that 25 “calendar preference” is necessary because of his declining health. Id. at 1. I am not 26 unsympathetic to plaintiff’s health issues, but many claimants in this district advance claims that 27 bear on their health and wellbeing, and the court cannot triage cases based on how serious each 28 claimant alleges their health issues are. If emergency relief is necessary, plaintiff may file a 1 properly supported motion for preliminary injunctive relief. His current motion for such relief, as 2 explained below, is inadequate. 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 4 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied. It does not 5 adequately address the necessary factors for the issuance of such relief, namely that: (1) he is 6 likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the 7 preliminary injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) a preliminary 8 injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 9 (2008). Indeed, plaintiff’s motion is nothing more than two printed e-mails, each of which 10 contains only a few allegations about plaintiff’s allegedly dire health problems. ECF No. 9 at 1-2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG EDMONDS, Case No. 2:25-cv-3721-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MUTUAL HOUSING, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Craig Edmonds (“plaintiff”) brings this action against defendants Mutual Housing, 18 Lavender Courtyard Apartments, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, the United 19 States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), Marlene Sanchez, Lutheran 20 Social Services, and Brenda Santiago. He alleges that defendants have violated his rights under 21 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to provide remote gate access at the 22 property where he lives. ECF No. 8 at 1-2. Plaintiff’s claims are articulated across several 23 different filings, ECF Nos. 1, 4, 6, & 7, including in an amended complaint, ECF No. 8, that, 24 despite its title, also appears to be a supplement to the original complaint. Under the local rules, a 25 complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on reference to ancillary documents. See 26 Local Rule 220. Accordingly, I will dismiss plaintiff’s initial complaint, which I construe as the 27 operative complaint in this action, and give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint 28 that contains all his claims in a single document. Additionally, as explained below, at least one of 1 the parties sued is not a viable defendant. Plaintiff may address this in any amended complaint he 2 submits. 3 In light of the foregoing, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive 4 relief, ECF No. 9, be denied. His request for calendar preference and expedited proceedings, 5 ECF No. 3, is also denied. Finally, I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 6 pauperis. ECF No. 2. This grant moots his request for ruling on his in forma pauperis status, 7 contained in ECF No. 9. 8 Screening and Pleading Requirements 9 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 10 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 11 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 12 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 13 relief. Id. 14 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 16 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 17 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 18 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 19 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 20 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 21 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 22 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 23 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 24 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 25 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 26 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 27 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 28 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 1 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 2 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 3 Analysis 4 Plaintiff’s claims are not, as they must be, contained in a single complaint. Instead, they 5 are filed across an initial complaint and several supplements. ECF Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, & 8. Under 6 this district’s local rules, all claims must be included in a single document, without reference to or 7 reliance on other, supplemental filings. See Local Rule 220. Accordingly, I will dismiss the 8 complaint so that plaintiff may include all his claims in a single, amended complaint. 9 Additionally, plaintiff is advised that HUD is not a viable defendant in an ADA action. 10 See Drevaleva v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 835 F. App’x 221, 223 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The district 11 court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s claim that she was discriminated against in violation of the 12 Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’) because the federal government is excluded from the 13 coverage of the ADA.”). Plaintiff has also sued numerous defendants in connection with his 14 claim; he is advised that the proper defendant in an ADA action is the public entity responsible 15 for the discrimination alleged. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153 (2006). Finally, 16 plaintiff should explain, in any amended complaint he files, how each defendant is responsible for 17 the lack of a remote gate. The various pleadings that currently comprise the complaint do not 18 effectively identify what responsibility each of the named defendants had in this failing. 19 I will give plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that remedies these 20 deficiencies. Any amended complaint will entirely supersede the initial one and must be 21 complete in itself. It should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and be filed within thirty 22 days of this order’s entry. 23 Motion to Expedite 24 Plaintiff’s motion to expedite proceedings, ECF No. 3, is denied. He argues that 25 “calendar preference” is necessary because of his declining health. Id. at 1. I am not 26 unsympathetic to plaintiff’s health issues, but many claimants in this district advance claims that 27 bear on their health and wellbeing, and the court cannot triage cases based on how serious each 28 claimant alleges their health issues are. If emergency relief is necessary, plaintiff may file a 1 properly supported motion for preliminary injunctive relief. His current motion for such relief, as 2 explained below, is inadequate. 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 4 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied. It does not 5 adequately address the necessary factors for the issuance of such relief, namely that: (1) he is 6 likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the 7 preliminary injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) a preliminary 8 injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 9 (2008). Indeed, plaintiff’s motion is nothing more than two printed e-mails, each of which 10 contains only a few allegations about plaintiff’s allegedly dire health problems. ECF No. 9 at 1-2. 11 This is not sufficient. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, contained in ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 14 His first amended complaint, ECF No. 8, to the extent plaintiff intended it to supplant the 15 original, is similarly DISMISSED. 16 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 17 complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 18 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 19 result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 20 with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 21 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 22 5. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 23 6. Plaintiff’s motion for calendar preference and to expedite proceedings, ECF No. 3, is 24 DENIED. 25 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 9, 26 be DENIED. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 1 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 2 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 3 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 4 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 6 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 7 | 1991). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ March 12, 2026 q———_ 1] JEREMY D. PETERSON 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28