(PS) Katumbusi v. Wasatch Property Management

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No. 2:22-cv-0250-DAD-JDP (PS) FATIMA ANN KATUMBUSI, Plaintiffs, ORDER; FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS WASATCH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Fatima Katumbusi, proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint against defendants Wasatch Property Management, Wasatch Holding, Reliant Management, Oak Valley, LLC; Oak Valley, L.P.; and Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment. She alleges that defendants violated the False Claims Act by submitting fraudulent claims to the Department of Housing and Urban Development through its Federal Housing Choice Voucher program, commonly referred to as “Section 8.” Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and motions to seal, to redact exhibits, and for a preliminary injunctive. Her application to proceed in forma pauperis makes the required showing, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and is therefore granted. I will deny her motions to seal and to redact, dismiss her complaint with leave to amend, and recommend that her motion for injunctive relief be denied.1 Screening Order I. Screening and Pleading Requirements A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

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 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, 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. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to redact. ECF No. 4. In that motion, plaintiff states that 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 redacted, and the motion is therefore denied. would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). II. Analysis Plaintiff alleges that in 2015, she moved into a residential unit at the Bridges at Five Oaks, an apartment complex owned by defendants Oak Valley, L.P., Oak Valley, LLC and Reliant Property Management and managed by defendants Wasatch Property Management and Wasatch Holdings. ECF No. 1 at 3, 7. Plaintiff leased her apartment through Federal Housing Choice Voucher program, which subsidized her rent. She claim that since 2015, her unit has been uninhabitable due to “leaking pipes, leaking walls, water damage, mildew, moist and damp ceilings, toxic mold, [and] noxious fumes . . . .” Id. at 1. Despite knowledge of these living conditions, defendants Wasatch Property Management, Wasatch Holding, Reliant Management, Oak Valley, LLC, and Oak Valley, L.P. submitted claims for payment to Department of Housing and Urban Development through its Section 8 program, which defendant Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment improperly approved. Id. at 8, 10-11. Defendants also allegedly charged plaintiff rents in excess of the amount permitted for section 8 tenants and higher than the amount charged to other tenants. Id. at 8. Plaintiff contends that by charging excessive rents and submitting claims for payment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, each defendant violated the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act permits the Attorney General or a private party to bring a civil action for submitting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government. 28 U.S.C. §§ 3729, 3730. When brought by a private party, who is known as the relator, the United States has sixty days to review the claims and decide whether it will intervein in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 3760(b)(2), (4). If the government declines to intervein, the relator prosecutes the action on behalf of the United States, which remains the real party in interest. United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 932 (2017); see Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]here the government chooses not to intervene, a relator bringing a qui tam action for a violation of § 3729 is representing the interests of the government and prosecuting the action on its behalf.”). Because a relator is representing the United States and not her own interest or case, she is not authorized to maintain an action under the False Claims Act. Stoner, 502 F.3d at 1126-27; United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, 871 F.3d 791, 800 n.2 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Because a FCA claim is the government’s claim—and not the relator’s claim—and because the FCA does not allow relators to pursue any interest they might have in the claim separately from the government, we [have] concluded that a pro se plaintiff [can] not bring such a claim.”). Here, plaintiff’s complaint only alleges claims for violation of the False Claims Act. Because plaintiff is not represented by counsel, she is not permitted to bring such claims. Accordingly, her complaint must be dismissed. I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend her complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff should also take care to add specific factual allegations against each defendant. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that asks the court enjoin defendants from, among other things: harassing, stalking, and molesting plaintiff; entering her unit without permission; destroying and tamping with her property; releasing noxious gases into her unit; manipulating her electronic devises. ECF No. 12. The requested relief bears no relation to plaintiff’s complaint, which concerns defendants submitting fraudulent claims to the federal government. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We hold that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.”). Moreover, because plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, she is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Accordingly, I will recommend denying this motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot. 3. Plaintiff’s motion to redact, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 5. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 6. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 7. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 12, be DENIED. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). > IT IS SO ORDERED. ( | { Wine Dated: _ February 24, 2025 qe JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE