Merritt v. Housing and Urban Development

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARDY MERRITT, Case No. 24-cv-03968-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 9 v. COMPLAINT WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTIONS TO 10 HOUSING AND URBAN CLERK DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF BERKELEY 11 (Health, Housing and Human Services), SHELTERPLUS CARE DEPARTMENT

12 AND PROGRAM, SB MANN 3 LLC Defendants. 13

14 15 By order filed July 16, 2024 ("July 16 Order"), the Court granted plaintiff Ardy 16 Merritt's ("Merritt") application to proceed in forma pauperis and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(2), dismissed Merritt's complaint, for failure to state a claim; the Court afforded 18 Merritt leave to amend. Now before the Court is Merritt's amended complaint, titled 19 "Amended Breach of Contract[,] Fraudulent Enforcement of Contract" ("AC"), and an 20 affidavit in support thereof, both filed July 26, 2024. 21 Where, as here, a party proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court, pursuant to 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must "dismiss the case" if the plaintiff "fails to state a claim on 23 which relief may be granted." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court thus turns to 24 the question of whether the AC states a claim on which relief may be granted. 25 Merritt asserts claims of breach of contract and fraud and seeks, as against all 26 defendants, monetary damages, as well as an injunction to stay proceedings in an 27 unlawful detainer action filed in state court. As set forth in greater detail in the July 16 1 brought an unlawful detainer action against him after it assertedly had breached the 2 terms of their rental agreement, and that the City of Berkeley ("Berkeley"), which provided 3 a rental subsidy to Merritt under Berkeley's ShelterPlus Care Program, and the United 4 States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), which provided a grant 5 to Berkeley to fund said Program, failed to take steps against SB Mann 3 LLC for its 6 asserted breach of the rental agreement. 7 In its prior Order, the Court dismissed Merritt's claims against HUD, as asserted in 8 the initial Complaint, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Merritt did not allege he had 9 presented an administrative claim to HUD prior to his filing the instant action. See 28 10 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (providing "action shall not be instituted against the United States for 11 money damages . . . unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the 12 appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied"). In light of 13 such dismissal, the Court also dismissed Merritt's claims against SB Mann 3 LLC and 14 Berkeley, which claims arise under state law, also for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 15 See Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding, 16 where federal claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, district court 17 has "no discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over [plaintiff's] state law claims"). 18 In the AC and supporting affidavit, Merritt provides additional details as to SB 19 Mann 3 LLC's alleged breach of contract (see, e.g., AC at 5 (alleging SB Mann 3 LLC is 20 "allowing . . . transient squatters to reside on property")), and the asserted failure by HUD 21 and Berkeley to intervene on his behalf (see, e.g., AC Ex. 2 at 1 (letter from HUD to 22 Merritt, stating HUD "field office" had "recommended [Merritt] comply with the terms of 23 [his] lease" and "work with [Berkeley] on paying the arrearage"); Pl.'s Aff. 6 (alleging 24 Berkeley employees in ShelterCare Plus engaged in "delay" that "prevented full 25 disclosure of the safety and security violations [of SB Mann 3 LLC]")). As neither the AC 26 nor the supporting affidavit, however, includes any allegation that Merritt submitted an 27 administrative claim to HUD prior to filing the instant action, let alone an allegation that 1 same reasons as expressed in the July 16 Order. 2 Accordingly, the AC is hereby DISMISSED without further leave to amend, for lack 3 || of subject matter jurisdiction. 4 The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: August 15, 2024 INE M. CHESNEY 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28