1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No. 2:22-cv-0250-DAD-JDP (PS) FATIMA ANN KATUMBUSI, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER; FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WASATCH PROPERTY 15 MANAGEMENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Fatima Katumbusi, proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint against 19 defendants Wasatch Property Management, Wasatch Holding, Reliant Management, Oak Valley, 20 LLC; Oak Valley, L.P.; and Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment. She alleges that 21 defendants violated the False Claims Act by submitting fraudulent claims to the Department of 22 Housing and Urban Development through its Federal Housing Choice Voucher program, 23 commonly referred to as “Section 8.” Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis and motions to seal, to redact exhibits, and for a preliminary injunctive. Her application 25 to proceed in forma pauperis makes the required showing, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and is 26 therefore granted. I will deny her motions to seal and to redact, dismiss her complaint with leave 27 28 1 to amend, and recommend that her motion for injunctive relief be denied.1 2 Screening Order 3 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 5 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 6 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 7 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 8 relief. Id. 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22
23 1 With her complaint, plaintiff filed a motion to seal this case as required by the False Claims Act. ECF No. 2. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3730, each of plaintiff’s filings were, at 24 least initially, filed under seal to provide the United States an opportunity to decide whether to intervene in this action. After the government filed its notice of election to decline intervention, 25 the court ordered plaintiff’s complaint unsealed; her other filings remain under seal. ECF No. 19. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to seal is moot and is therefore denied. 26 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to redact. ECF No. 4. In that motion, plaintiff states that 27 she “was made aware” that she should not have filed exhibits in this action. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s conclusory statement fails to demonstrate that the complaint’s exhibits should be 28 redacted, and the motion is therefore denied. 1 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 2 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 3 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 4 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 5 II. Analysis 6 Plaintiff alleges that in 2015, she moved into a residential unit at the Bridges at Five Oaks, 7 an apartment complex owned by defendants Oak Valley, L.P., Oak Valley, LLC and Reliant 8 Property Management and managed by defendants Wasatch Property Management and Wasatch 9 Holdings. ECF No. 1 at 3, 7. Plaintiff leased her apartment through Federal Housing Choice 10 Voucher program, which subsidized her rent. She claim that since 2015, her unit has been 11 uninhabitable due to “leaking pipes, leaking walls, water damage, mildew, moist and damp 12 ceilings, toxic mold, [and] noxious fumes . . . .” Id. at 1. Despite knowledge of these living 13 conditions, defendants Wasatch Property Management, Wasatch Holding, Reliant Management, 14 Oak Valley, LLC, and Oak Valley, L.P. submitted claims for payment to Department of Housing 15 and Urban Development through its Section 8 program, which defendant Sacramento Housing 16 and Redevelopment improperly approved. Id. at 8, 10-11. Defendants also allegedly charged 17 plaintiff rents in excess of the amount permitted for section 8 tenants and higher than the amount 18 charged to other tenants. Id. at 8. Plaintiff contends that by charging excessive rents and 19 submitting claims for payment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, each 20 defendant violated the False Claims Act. 21 The False Claims Act permits the Attorney General or a private party to bring a civil 22 action for submitting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 3729, 3730. When brought by a private party, who is known as the relator, the United States 24 has sixty days to review the claims and decide whether it will intervein in the case. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 3760(b)(2), (4). If the government declines to intervein, the relator prosecutes the action on 26 behalf of the United States, which remains the real party in interest. United States ex rel. 27 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932 (2017); see Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office 28 of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]here the government chooses not to 1 intervene, a relator bringing a qui tam action for a violation of § 3729 is representing the interests 2 of the government and prosecuting the action on its behalf.”). Because a relator is representing 3 the United States and not her own interest or case, she is not authorized to maintain an action 4 under the False Claims Act.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No. 2:22-cv-0250-DAD-JDP (PS) FATIMA ANN KATUMBUSI, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER; FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WASATCH PROPERTY 15 MANAGEMENT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Fatima Katumbusi, proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint against 19 defendants Wasatch Property Management, Wasatch Holding, Reliant Management, Oak Valley, 20 LLC; Oak Valley, L.P.; and Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment. She alleges that 21 defendants violated the False Claims Act by submitting fraudulent claims to the Department of 22 Housing and Urban Development through its Federal Housing Choice Voucher program, 23 commonly referred to as “Section 8.” Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis and motions to seal, to redact exhibits, and for a preliminary injunctive. Her application 25 to proceed in forma pauperis makes the required showing, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and is 26 therefore granted. I will deny her motions to seal and to redact, dismiss her complaint with leave 27 28 1 to amend, and recommend that her motion for injunctive relief be denied.1 2 Screening Order 3 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 5 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 6 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 7 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 8 relief. Id. 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22
23 1 With her complaint, plaintiff filed a motion to seal this case as required by the False Claims Act. ECF No. 2. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3730, each of plaintiff’s filings were, at 24 least initially, filed under seal to provide the United States an opportunity to decide whether to intervene in this action. After the government filed its notice of election to decline intervention, 25 the court ordered plaintiff’s complaint unsealed; her other filings remain under seal. ECF No. 19. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to seal is moot and is therefore denied. 26 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to redact. ECF No. 4. In that motion, plaintiff states that 27 she “was made aware” that she should not have filed exhibits in this action. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s conclusory statement fails to demonstrate that the complaint’s exhibits should be 28 redacted, and the motion is therefore denied. 1 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 2 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 3 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 4 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 5 II. Analysis 6 Plaintiff alleges that in 2015, she moved into a residential unit at the Bridges at Five Oaks, 7 an apartment complex owned by defendants Oak Valley, L.P., Oak Valley, LLC and Reliant 8 Property Management and managed by defendants Wasatch Property Management and Wasatch 9 Holdings. ECF No. 1 at 3, 7. Plaintiff leased her apartment through Federal Housing Choice 10 Voucher program, which subsidized her rent. She claim that since 2015, her unit has been 11 uninhabitable due to “leaking pipes, leaking walls, water damage, mildew, moist and damp 12 ceilings, toxic mold, [and] noxious fumes . . . .” Id. at 1. Despite knowledge of these living 13 conditions, defendants Wasatch Property Management, Wasatch Holding, Reliant Management, 14 Oak Valley, LLC, and Oak Valley, L.P. submitted claims for payment to Department of Housing 15 and Urban Development through its Section 8 program, which defendant Sacramento Housing 16 and Redevelopment improperly approved. Id. at 8, 10-11. Defendants also allegedly charged 17 plaintiff rents in excess of the amount permitted for section 8 tenants and higher than the amount 18 charged to other tenants. Id. at 8. Plaintiff contends that by charging excessive rents and 19 submitting claims for payment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, each 20 defendant violated the False Claims Act. 21 The False Claims Act permits the Attorney General or a private party to bring a civil 22 action for submitting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 3729, 3730. When brought by a private party, who is known as the relator, the United States 24 has sixty days to review the claims and decide whether it will intervein in the case. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 3760(b)(2), (4). If the government declines to intervein, the relator prosecutes the action on 26 behalf of the United States, which remains the real party in interest. United States ex rel. 27 Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932 (2017); see Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office 28 of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]here the government chooses not to 1 intervene, a relator bringing a qui tam action for a violation of § 3729 is representing the interests 2 of the government and prosecuting the action on its behalf.”). Because a relator is representing 3 the United States and not her own interest or case, she is not authorized to maintain an action 4 under the False Claims Act. Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1126-27; United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left 5 Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, 871 F.3d 791, 800 n.2 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Because a FCA claim is 6 the government’s claim—and not the relator’s claim—and because the FCA does not allow 7 relators to pursue any interest they might have in the claim separately from the government, we 8 [have] concluded that a pro se plaintiff [can] not bring such a claim.”). 9 Here, plaintiff’s complaint only alleges claims for violation of the False Claims Act. 10 Because plaintiff is not represented by counsel, she is not permitted to bring such claims. 11 Accordingly, her complaint must be dismissed. 12 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this 13 action be dismissed. Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against each 14 defendant. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will 15 supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) 16 (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without 17 reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is 18 filed, the current one no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in 19 the original, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in 20 sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and 21 refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will 22 recommend that this action be dismissed. 23 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 24 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that asks the court enjoin 25 defendants from, among other things: harassing, stalking, and molesting plaintiff; entering her 26 unit without permission; destroying and tamping with her property; releasing noxious gases into 27 her unit; manipulating her electronic devises. ECF No. 12. The requested relief bears no relation 28 to plaintiff’s complaint, which concerns defendants submitting fraudulent claims to the federal 1 government. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th 2 Cir. 2015) (“We hold that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion 3 for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.”). Moreover, because 4 plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, she is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on 5 the merits. See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Accordingly, I will recommend 6 denying this motion. 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED. 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot. 10 3. Plaintiff’s motion to redact, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. 11 4. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 12 5. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 13 complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 14 6. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 15 result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 16 with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 17 7. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 18 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF 19 No. 12, be DENIED. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 22 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 23 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 24 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 25 within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 26 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 27 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 28 1991). 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ February 24, 2025 qe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28