Kai Lu v. Midpen Housing Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 KAI LU, Case No. 26-cv-00875-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO REFILE APPLICATION 9 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; SCREENING COMPLAINT AND 10 MIDPEN HOUSING CORPORATION, GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

12 13 Self-represented plaintiff Kai Lu filed a complaint alleging an unlawful eviction. Dkt. 1. 14 Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)—i.e., without paying the 15 otherwise mandatory filing fee. Dkt. 2. The Court orders plaintiff to refile a complete IFP 16 application. As required by 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), the Court also screens plaintiff’s complaint and 17 finds that it fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore dismissed with 18 leave to amend. Plaintiff must file an amended IFP application and an amended complaint by 19 March 19, 2026, or risk dismissal of this case. 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits a court to authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis if the 22 plaintiff shows that they cannot afford the fees necessary to pursue an action. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(a)(1). The Court must screen every civil action brought in forma pauperis under § 1915 24 and dismiss any case that is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 25 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). 27 2 I. IFP Application 3 Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete. In response to question two, plaintiff does not 4 provide the amount of money received from the sources identified. Plaintiff also does not provide 5 all monthly expenses in response to question eight and does not respond to question nine. Without 6 a complete IFP application, the Court is unable to determine whether plaintiff is able to pay the 7 filing fee. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to file an amended IFP application that provides complete 8 responses to each question. 9 II. Screening the Complaint 10 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 11 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Accordingly, federal courts must ensure they have subject matter 12 jurisdiction over every case. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). 13 A federal court plaintiff must adequately allege that the court has subject matter 14 jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. To do so, a complaint must meet the requirements for 15 either (1) federal question jurisdiction or (2) diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 16 Federal question jurisdiction requires plaintiffs to specify a federal law that the defendant violated. 17 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction requires that parties are citizens of different states and the 18 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 19 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the Court has jurisdiction in this matter based on federal 20 question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1, at 3. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the defendant “violated the 21 Federal Regulations and Policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,” 22 including 4350.3 Rev-1, Ch 3-23. Id. To state a claim on a violation of a HUD regulation, 23 however, a plaintiff must have a private right of action to file a lawsuit to enforce the regulation. 24 Visintini v. Hayward, No. 08-cv-5393 EMC, 2009 WL 2413356, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2009) 25 (citing Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 939 (9th Cir.2003) (“[F]ederal rights are 26 created by Congress through statutes, not by agencies through regulations.”)). Where there is no 27 private right of action to remedy a violation of a federal regulation, a court lacks federal question 1 congressional determination that there should be no federal remedy for the violation of this federal 2 statute is tantamount to a congressional conclusion that the presence of a claimed violation of the 3 statute as an element of a state cause of action is insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer federal- 4 question jurisdiction.”). 5 “The Ninth Circuit has not specifically addressed whether there is a private right of action 6 to enforce HUD regulations. However, several circuits that have addressed this issue have found 7 that there is no private right of action to enforce HUD regulations.” 946 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1111 8 (D. Nev. 2013). District courts in the Ninth Circuit have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., 9 Umouyo v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 16-cv-01576-RAJ, 2019 WL 1568423, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10 11, 2019) (“Numerous courts, including this Court, have held that no private cause of action 11 [exists] for violations of HUD regulations.”); Milano v. Richmond Hous. Auth. of Contra Costa 12 Cnty., No. 16-cv-03246-JSW, 2018 WL 11472386, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018) (“To the extent 13 Plaintiff seeks to state a claim directly under the Section 8 regulations, her claim fails because 14 there is no private right of action under the regulations themselves.”); Hamilton v. U.S. Bank Nat’l 15 Ass’n, No. 22-cv-1259-GW-KKX, 2023 WL 3559329, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) (“[T]here 16 is no private cause of action for HUD violations. … Thus, Defendants’ alleged failure to comply 17 with HUD regulations cannot provide a basis for Plaintiff’s causes of action.”). This Court is 18 likewise unaware of any authority creating a private right of action in the HUD regulations. 19 As a result, plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any violation of federal law with a private 20 right of action that can establish federal question jurisdiction. See Brooks-Hamilton v. City of 21 Oakland, No. 01-cv-04569 WHA, 2002 WL 1346714, at *1–3 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2002). As this 22 is the only alleged basis for subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff’s complaint fails to adequately 23 allege that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. The Court dismisses 24 plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. 26 The San Jose Courthouse’s Federal Pro Se Program provides free information and limited 27 scope legal advice to self-represented civil litigants. This service is free. The Federal Pro Se ] additional online resources: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. 3 Plaintiff is ordered to refile a complete IFP application. Plaintiff's complaint is also 4 || dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 Plaintiff must file an amended IFP application and an amended complaint by March 6 19, 2026. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. 8 || Dated: February 5, 2026 9 10 Ha ~ . Casey ts 1] United States District Judge a 12

15 16

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