DEWITT JAMAR THOMAS v. MARIA VANEZUELA, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02939
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEWITT JAMAR THOMAS, Case No. 2:25-cv-2939-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARIA VANEZUELA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brings this action against two property managers—defendants Maria Vanezuela 19 and Ranetta Cann—and two property management companies, defendants John Stewart Company 20 Property Management and Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency. His complaint, 21 however, fails to state a claim and is dismissed. I will give plaintiff leave to amend to file an 22 amended complaint that better explains the factual basis of his claims. I will also grant his 23 application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 24 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 25 Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 27 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 28 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief. Id. 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 The complaint’s limited allegations indicate that plaintiff seeks relief based on his 22 placement in an apartment with neighbors who have made it difficult for him and his family to 23 live in the apartment. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Vanezuela, the property 24 manager, told him to not communicate with her or her staff regarding his issues with his 25 neighbors. Id. Plaintiff alleges that her actions amount to harassment, neglect, discrimination, 26 and a failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Id. at 4. 27 These limited allegations are insufficient to put defendants on notice of plaintiff’s claims 28 and of the factual basis for them. See Jones v. Cnty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1 1984) (“The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which 2 defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.”). Moreover, plaintiff has not asserted a 3 legal claim for his grievances. If plaintiff intended to assert an ADA claim, such a claim would 4 fail because residential apartments are not places of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. 5 § 12112. Plaintiff would also fail to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he has not 6 alleged a constitutional violation by a government actor. 7 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 8 plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. 9 Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against defendant. If plaintiff 10 decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See 11 Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the 12 amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. 13 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no longer 14 serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will need to 15 assert each claim and allege defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 16 should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff 17 does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 18 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 20 2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 21 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 22 complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 23 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 24 result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 25 with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 26 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 27 28 1 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ( | { Dated: _ December 19, 2025 Q_—_—. 5 JEREMY D. PETERSON 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28