8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LEAH ROSEEN TURNER, Case No. 1:25-cv-02033-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND 13 GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED v. COMPLAINT 14 FRESNO HOUSING AUTHORITY, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Leah Roseen Turner, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 18 complaint against Fresno Housing Authority. (ECF No. 1.) The Court previously granted 19 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) The Court now undertakes 20 screening of the complaint. 21 I. 22 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 The in forma pauperis statute provides that a court shall dismiss a case if, inter alia, the 24 complaint is “frivolous or malicious,” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law 26 or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this 27 standard, the court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the 1 plaintiff. See id. at 326-27. 2 Pleadings by pro se litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 3 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 4 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 5 624 (9th Cir. 1981). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege 6 enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 8 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 9 for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A pro se litigant is 10 entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the 11 complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th 12 Cir. 1995). 13 II. 14 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 15 Plaintiff brings this action against Fresno Housing Authority and has indicated that the 16 basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is federal question. (ECF No. 1, p. 3.) In her complaint, 17 Plaintiff alleges claims arising under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604; Violence Against 18 Women Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12491; and Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at p. 5.) 19 Plaintiff factual allegations are as follows: I Leah Roseen Turner, a participant in HCVP claim that the 20 Defendant discriminated and retaliated against me on the basis of 21 sex for reporting sexual assault violating VAWA and continued to conduct unlawful retaliation for my protected activities, Defendant 22 failed to provide fair procedures before decreasing voucher, then questioned Plaintiff’s employer actions outside the agencies lawful 23 duties causing housing instability and employment harm. 24 (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff states that she is seeking “restoration of full housing voucher benefits; 25 or possible agency transfer, compensation for full economic loss and emotional distress [,] 26 injunctive relief prohibiting further retaliation or employment interference court fee’s [sic] and 27 retrobution for [sic].” (Id. at p. 6.) 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8 requires that a complaint contain “a short and 4 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 8(a)(2). To comply with Rule 8, a complaint should clearly and fully set forth “who is being 6 sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” Id. Such 7 notice pleading is required in federal court in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the 8 claim . . . is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations 9 omitted). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements 10 of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 at 678. This is because, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. 12 Id. Additionally, in the event of multiple claims, each claim should be stated separately and 13 identify the specific facts that support that claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b); see also Hughey v. 14 Camacho, No. 2:13-cv-2665-TLN-AC, 2014 WL 5473184, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014) 15 (noting a shotgun pleading occurs when “one party pleads multiple claims and does not identify 16 which specific facts are allocated to which claim.”) 17 Here, Plaintiff provides no factual allegations describing the conduct underlying her 18 claims. While Plaintiff raises three causes of action, the complaint does not identify specific 19 facts to support the elements of each of the claims asserted. Without such factual allegations, the 20 complaint is conclusory and does not comply with Rule 8. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to 21 file an amended complaint so that she may provide additional factual details sufficient to state a 22 cognizable claim. Should Plaintiff choose to amend her complaint, she must separately state 23 each cause of action; identify which Defendant she believes is liable for that cause of action; and 24 include specific factual allegations showing how the identified Defendant’s conduct satisfies the 25 elements of the claim asserted. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 4 The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the above identified 5 deficiencies to the extent Plaintiff is able to do so in good faith. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 6 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must comply with Rule 8 of the 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 9 [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 10 (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 11 unrelated claims in her amended complaint. 12 Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 13 Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 14 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LEAH ROSEEN TURNER, Case No. 1:25-cv-02033-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND 13 GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED v. COMPLAINT 14 FRESNO HOUSING AUTHORITY, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Leah Roseen Turner, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 18 complaint against Fresno Housing Authority. (ECF No. 1.) The Court previously granted 19 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.) The Court now undertakes 20 screening of the complaint. 21 I. 22 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 The in forma pauperis statute provides that a court shall dismiss a case if, inter alia, the 24 complaint is “frivolous or malicious,” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law 26 or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this 27 standard, the court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the 1 plaintiff. See id. at 326-27. 2 Pleadings by pro se litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 3 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 4 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 5 624 (9th Cir. 1981). To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege 6 enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 8 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 9 for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A pro se litigant is 10 entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the 11 complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th 12 Cir. 1995). 13 II. 14 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 15 Plaintiff brings this action against Fresno Housing Authority and has indicated that the 16 basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is federal question. (ECF No. 1, p. 3.) In her complaint, 17 Plaintiff alleges claims arising under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604; Violence Against 18 Women Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12491; and Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at p. 5.) 19 Plaintiff factual allegations are as follows: I Leah Roseen Turner, a participant in HCVP claim that the 20 Defendant discriminated and retaliated against me on the basis of 21 sex for reporting sexual assault violating VAWA and continued to conduct unlawful retaliation for my protected activities, Defendant 22 failed to provide fair procedures before decreasing voucher, then questioned Plaintiff’s employer actions outside the agencies lawful 23 duties causing housing instability and employment harm. 24 (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff states that she is seeking “restoration of full housing voucher benefits; 25 or possible agency transfer, compensation for full economic loss and emotional distress [,] 26 injunctive relief prohibiting further retaliation or employment interference court fee’s [sic] and 27 retrobution for [sic].” (Id. at p. 6.) 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8 requires that a complaint contain “a short and 4 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 8(a)(2). To comply with Rule 8, a complaint should clearly and fully set forth “who is being 6 sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” Id. Such 7 notice pleading is required in federal court in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the 8 claim . . . is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations 9 omitted). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements 10 of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 at 678. This is because, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. 12 Id. Additionally, in the event of multiple claims, each claim should be stated separately and 13 identify the specific facts that support that claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b); see also Hughey v. 14 Camacho, No. 2:13-cv-2665-TLN-AC, 2014 WL 5473184, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2014) 15 (noting a shotgun pleading occurs when “one party pleads multiple claims and does not identify 16 which specific facts are allocated to which claim.”) 17 Here, Plaintiff provides no factual allegations describing the conduct underlying her 18 claims. While Plaintiff raises three causes of action, the complaint does not identify specific 19 facts to support the elements of each of the claims asserted. Without such factual allegations, the 20 complaint is conclusory and does not comply with Rule 8. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to 21 file an amended complaint so that she may provide additional factual details sufficient to state a 22 cognizable claim. Should Plaintiff choose to amend her complaint, she must separately state 23 each cause of action; identify which Defendant she believes is liable for that cause of action; and 24 include specific factual allegations showing how the identified Defendant’s conduct satisfies the 25 elements of the claim asserted. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 4 The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the above identified 5 deficiencies to the extent Plaintiff is able to do so in good faith. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 6 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must comply with Rule 8 of the 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 9 [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 10 (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 11 unrelated claims in her amended complaint. 12 Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 13 Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 14 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a 15 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County 16 of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 17 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a complaint for civil case form; 19 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 20 an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 21 order; 22 3. The amended complaint, including attachments, shall not exceed twenty-five (25) 23 pages in length; and 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 2 Court will recommend to a district judge that this action be dismissed consistent 3 with the reasons stated in this order. 4 rs.20 onoenan, DA (Be 6 | Dated: _ March 19, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE 7 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