(PS) Hill v. U.S. Secretary of HUD

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03761
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KENNETH HILL, No. 2:24-cv-03761-DC-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 U.S. SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 17 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18 No. 5), and Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 230 this matter was 19 submitted without oral argument. ECF No. 6. The Court hereby directs Plaintiff to show cause 20 why the motion should not be granted, and the action dismissed on the basis of sovereign 21 immunity. 22 I. Procedural History and Background 23 Plaintiff filed this action on November 28, 2023, in Sacramento County Superior Court. 24 ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff named as Defendants the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban 25 Development (“HUD”) and MTC Financial Inc. (“MTC”). Id. Plaintiff stated that he sought to 26 enjoin a foreclosure and obtain an accounting. Id. Plaintiff alleges he had been living at his father’s 27 residence for three years and was unaware there was a mortgage on the property when he received 28 1 a notice of default and foreclosure sale on October 12, 2023. Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleged HUD 2 violated state law by failing to contact him prior to filing a notice of default, and not providing a 3 90-day period before recording a notice of sale. Id. at 6. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief stopping 4 the foreclosure process and $5,000 in compensatory damages. Id. 5 HUD removed the action to this Court on December 30, 2024, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6 1442(a)(1). ECF No. 1 at 2. HUD then filed a motion to dismiss on January 3, 2025. ECF No. 5. 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) an opposition was due within 14 days. On February 6, 2025, this 8 Court issued an Order which advised Plaintiff of the local rule and sua sponte granted Plaintiff an 9 additional 10 days to respond. ECF No. 6. The Order further cautioned that failure to respond may 10 be construed as non-opposition to the motion. Id. Plaintiff did not respond. 11 II. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) 12 Defendant HUD moves to dismiss and argues that the action can be dismissed on four 13 independent grounds: 1) sovereign immunity; 2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 14 contract-based claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) & (3); 3) Plaintiff fails to state 15 a claim; and 4) federal preemption bars Plaintiff’s state law claims. ECF No. 5-1 at 2. The Motion 16 states that the foreclosure sale took place on November 30, 2023, and HUD was the highest bidder 17 at $356,503. Id. at 3. 18 As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 19 230 provides that any opposition must be filed within 14 days, and “failure to file a timely 20 opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.” LR 230(c). 21 Plaintiff’s opposition was originally due on January 17, 2025. Pro se litigants are subject to the 22 same procedural requirements as other litigants. Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th 23 Cir. 2022). On February 6, 2025, the Court sua sponte granted Plaintiff an additional 10 days to 24 file an opposition, but no opposition was filed. The failure to comply with Local Rule 230 alone 25 could merit dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a 26 district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). 27 On the question of sovereign immunity, HUD is a United States government agency and 28 “[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” 1 | Dunn v. HUD, 2024 WL 200995 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2024), citing FDIC v. Meyer, 510 □□□□ 2 | 471, 486 (1994). In Nason vy. HUD, 2025 WL 785205 (9th Cir. March 12, 2025), the plaintiff 3 || brought an action seeking to set aside HUD’s foreclosure sale and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 4 | district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge in Nason had 5 || stated: “Because Plaintiff has failed to identify any basis for finding a waiver of sovereign immunity 6 || it is recommended the Court dismiss her breach of contract claim for lack of jurisdiction.” Nason 7 || v. HUD, 2023 WL 2898689 at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 20, 2023). The Court acknowledges that 8 | various federal statutes provide limited waivers of sovereign immunity as to claims against HUD, 9 || for example 42 U.S.C. § 1404a. However, Plaintiff did not plead any waiver of sovereign immunity 10 | and did not respond to the motion to dismiss. See Dunn, 2024 WL 200995 at *3 (“No waiver has 11 || been pleaded in this case. HUD is therefore entitled to sovereign immunity and subject to 12 | dismissal.”); see also Vickerman v. HUD, 2010 WL 2291897 at *2 (D. Nev. June 1, 2010) (“As 13 | Plaintiff has failed to cite to any statute or other authority authorizing his claims against HUD, the 14 | court will grant HUD’s motion to dismiss.”). 15 HII. Conclusion 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, within 14 days 17 | of the entry of this Order, as to why the Court should not grant the motion to dismiss based on 18 | Plaintiffs failure to respond to the motion to dismiss and based on sovereign immunity. 19 | Plaintiffs response should address how he could amend to plead a waiver of sovereign immunity. 20 | If Plaintiff fails to respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 | 41(b); Local Rule 110. 22 || DATED: April 30, 2025 Kink 24 SEAN C. RIORDAN 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28