Scoggins v. Falcon Court

E.D. California

Scoggins v. Falcon Court

DecidedMarch 28, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00188

StatusUnknown

This text of Scoggins v. Falcon Court (Scoggins v. Falcon Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scoggins v. Falcon Court, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DANELL R. SCOGGINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-KES-SKO

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, 12 v. DISMISSING 13 (Doc. 9) FALCON COURT, TURNING POINT OF 14 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA,

15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Plaintiff Danell Scoggins proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action which 19 she initiated on February 9, 2024. Docs. 1, 2. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and the 22 magistrate judge construed the allegations in the complaint to assert an Eighth Amendment claim 23 and claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. Doc. 7. The 24 magistrate judge found that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to make out those claims 25 and granted plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. Doc. 7. Plaintiff filed a first 26 amended complaint on May 21, 2024. Doc. 9. Upon reviewing the first amended complaint, the 27 assigned magistrate issued findings and recommendation recommending that this action be 28 1 dismissed without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. Doc. 10. 2 On August 13, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendation. Doc. 11. On 3 August 16, 2024, she filed a notice which states that, the day after she filed her objections, her 4 landlord provided a three-day notice to quit for breaches of covenant. Doc. 12. The landlord’s notice to quit is attached to her notice. See id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that this notice to quit is 5 “additional evidence of retaliation . . . .” See id. at 1. 6 Plaintiff’s objections and additional notice provide evidence which, if included in her 7 complaint, may allow her to make out a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. “As 8 with any retaliation claim, [courts must] apply the familiar burden-shifting analysis established by 9 the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).” Walker v. City 10 of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001). “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation 11 [under the Fair Housing Act], a plaintiff must show that (1) [she] engaged in a protected activity; 12 (2) the defendant subjected [her] to an adverse action; and (3) a causal link exists between the 13 protected activity and the adverse action.” Id. “If a plaintiff has presented a prima facie 14 retaliation claim, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory 15 reason for its decision.” Id. “If the defendant articulates such a reason, the plaintiff bears the 16 ultimate burden of demonstrating that the reason was merely a pretext for a discriminatory 17 motive.” Id. 18 As for the first element, “[f]iling a lawsuit [] to enforce rights under the Fair Housing Act 19 is a protected activity.” E.g., Washington v. Farmington Estates Owners Ass’n, 2022 WL 20 18399534, at *6 (D. Or. July 13, 2022). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that defendants 21 discriminated against her on numerous bases: disability, sexual orientation, and religion. Doc. 9 22 at 4. Although her complaint failed to flesh out the details of any disability and did not describe 23 her sexual orientation or religion, see Doc. 9, it is at least clear that she intended to allege that defendants had discriminated against her on those bases, as the findings and recommendations 24 correctly recognized, see Doc. 10 at 4. Therefore, plaintiff may be able to establish the first 25 element of a retaliation claim if given a chance to amend the complaint. 26 Second, under the Fair Housing Act, an adverse action must come in the form of 27 “coerc[ion], intimidat[ion], threat[s], or interfere[nce].” Walker, 272 F.3d at 1128 (quoting 42 28 1 U.S.C. § 3617). “‘Interference’ has been broadly applied to reach all practices which have the 2 effect of interfering with the exercise of rights under the federal fair housing laws.” Id. Eviction 3 proceedings and threats of legal action against the plaintiff may constitute adverse actions. Elliot 4 v. QF Circa 37, LLC, No. 16-cv-0288-BAS-AGS, 2018 WL 2933467, at *20 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2018). Here, among other evidence, plaintiff has submitted the landlord’s notice to quit, which 5 states that it requires plaintiff to vacate the premises and threatens legal action against her if she 6 does not. Plaintiff may be able to allege that defendants took adverse action against her. 1 7 Third, “a plaintiff must show that a defendant took an adverse action with the intent to 8 retaliate against the plaintiff.” Id. (citing East-Miller v. Lake Cty. Highway Dev., 421 F.3d 558, 9 563 (7th Cir. 2005)). “Such intent demonstrates a causal connection between the adverse action 10 and the protected activity.” Id. “Under the McDonnell Douglas[] framework, timing alone may 11 be sufficient to support the inference of a retaliatory motive if the protected activity and the 12 allegedly retaliatory employment action are sufficiently close in time.” Neighorn v. Quest Health 13 Care, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1103–04 (citing Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802, 812 14 (9th Cir. 2004)). Here, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on 15 August 13, 2024, and the next day, she was served with a three-day notice to quit for breaches of 16 covenant. See Doc. 12. This close temporal proximity may be a sufficient basis to infer 17 retaliatory motive. “[P]roximity in time between the protected activity and the allegedly 18 retaliatory decision can constitute some evidence of a retaliatory motive or of a causal link.” 19 Donaghey v. Moorpark Bellingham Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-08524-DSF-MAA, 20 2023 WL 9318509, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2023) (quotations omitted). 21 The Court concludes that findings and recommendations are correct that plaintiff’s first 22 amended complaint does not state a cognizable claim. However, because plaintiff’s 23 subsequently-filed objections and notice identify evidence that may, if sufficiently spelled out in a second amended complaint, enable her to state a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, 24 the Court will give plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint one final time. 25 Plaintiff is informed that an amended complaint supersedes a prior complaint. Lacey 26

27 1 The Court notes that, at the second step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, defendants may be able to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for their alleged action. The notice to 28 quit identifies seven distinct violations by plaintiff of her rental agreement. See Doc. 12 at 3. 1 | v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). An amended complaint must be 2 | “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” L.R. 220.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DANELL R. SCOGGINS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-KES-SKO

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, 12 v. DISMISSING 13 (Doc. 9) FALCON COURT, TURNING POINT OF 14 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA,

15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Plaintiff Danell Scoggins proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action which 19 she initiated on February 9, 2024. Docs. 1, 2. This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and the 22 magistrate judge construed the allegations in the complaint to assert an Eighth Amendment claim 23 and claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. Doc. 7. The 24 magistrate judge found that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to make out those claims 25 and granted plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. Doc. 7. Plaintiff filed a first 26 amended complaint on May 21, 2024. Doc. 9. Upon reviewing the first amended complaint, the 27 assigned magistrate issued findings and recommendation recommending that this action be 28 1 dismissed without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. Doc. 10. 2 On August 13, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendation. Doc. 11. On 3 August 16, 2024, she filed a notice which states that, the day after she filed her objections, her 4 landlord provided a three-day notice to quit for breaches of covenant. Doc. 12. The landlord’s notice to quit is attached to her notice. See id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that this notice to quit is 5 “additional evidence of retaliation . . . .” See id. at 1. 6 Plaintiff’s objections and additional notice provide evidence which, if included in her 7 complaint, may allow her to make out a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. “As 8 with any retaliation claim, [courts must] apply the familiar burden-shifting analysis established by 9 the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).” Walker v. City 10 of Lakewood, 272 F.3d 1114, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001). “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation 11 [under the Fair Housing Act], a plaintiff must show that (1) [she] engaged in a protected activity; 12 (2) the defendant subjected [her] to an adverse action; and (3) a causal link exists between the 13 protected activity and the adverse action.” Id. “If a plaintiff has presented a prima facie 14 retaliation claim, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory 15 reason for its decision.” Id. “If the defendant articulates such a reason, the plaintiff bears the 16 ultimate burden of demonstrating that the reason was merely a pretext for a discriminatory 17 motive.” Id. 18 As for the first element, “[f]iling a lawsuit [] to enforce rights under the Fair Housing Act 19 is a protected activity.” E.g., Washington v. Farmington Estates Owners Ass’n, 2022 WL 20 18399534, at *6 (D. Or. July 13, 2022). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that defendants 21 discriminated against her on numerous bases: disability, sexual orientation, and religion. Doc. 9 22 at 4. Although her complaint failed to flesh out the details of any disability and did not describe 23 her sexual orientation or religion, see Doc. 9, it is at least clear that she intended to allege that defendants had discriminated against her on those bases, as the findings and recommendations 24 correctly recognized, see Doc. 10 at 4. Therefore, plaintiff may be able to establish the first 25 element of a retaliation claim if given a chance to amend the complaint. 26 Second, under the Fair Housing Act, an adverse action must come in the form of 27 “coerc[ion], intimidat[ion], threat[s], or interfere[nce].” Walker, 272 F.3d at 1128 (quoting 42 28 1 U.S.C. § 3617). “‘Interference’ has been broadly applied to reach all practices which have the 2 effect of interfering with the exercise of rights under the federal fair housing laws.” Id. Eviction 3 proceedings and threats of legal action against the plaintiff may constitute adverse actions. Elliot 4 v. QF Circa 37, LLC, No. 16-cv-0288-BAS-AGS, 2018 WL 2933467, at *20 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2018). Here, among other evidence, plaintiff has submitted the landlord’s notice to quit, which 5 states that it requires plaintiff to vacate the premises and threatens legal action against her if she 6 does not. Plaintiff may be able to allege that defendants took adverse action against her. 1 7 Third, “a plaintiff must show that a defendant took an adverse action with the intent to 8 retaliate against the plaintiff.” Id. (citing East-Miller v. Lake Cty. Highway Dev., 421 F.3d 558, 9 563 (7th Cir. 2005)). “Such intent demonstrates a causal connection between the adverse action 10 and the protected activity.” Id. “Under the McDonnell Douglas[] framework, timing alone may 11 be sufficient to support the inference of a retaliatory motive if the protected activity and the 12 allegedly retaliatory employment action are sufficiently close in time.” Neighorn v. Quest Health 13 Care, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1103–04 (citing Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802, 812 14 (9th Cir. 2004)). Here, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on 15 August 13, 2024, and the next day, she was served with a three-day notice to quit for breaches of 16 covenant. See Doc. 12. This close temporal proximity may be a sufficient basis to infer 17 retaliatory motive. “[P]roximity in time between the protected activity and the allegedly 18 retaliatory decision can constitute some evidence of a retaliatory motive or of a causal link.” 19 Donaghey v. Moorpark Bellingham Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-08524-DSF-MAA, 20 2023 WL 9318509, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2023) (quotations omitted). 21 The Court concludes that findings and recommendations are correct that plaintiff’s first 22 amended complaint does not state a cognizable claim. However, because plaintiff’s 23 subsequently-filed objections and notice identify evidence that may, if sufficiently spelled out in a second amended complaint, enable her to state a claim for retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, 24 the Court will give plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint one final time. 25 Plaintiff is informed that an amended complaint supersedes a prior complaint. Lacey 26

27 1 The Court notes that, at the second step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, defendants may be able to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for their alleged action. The notice to 28 quit identifies seven distinct violations by plaintiff of her rental agreement. See Doc. 12 at 3. 1 | v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). An amended complaint must be 2 | “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” L.R. 220. 3 | Accordingly, while the Court grants plaintiff leave to amend to replead her claim for 4 | retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, plaintiff must fully allege in any second amended 5 | complaint all allegations that support her claim. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 31, 2024, Doc. 10, are adopted in 8 part; 9 2. This action is dismissed with leave to amend due to plaintiff's failure to state a 10 cognizable claim; 11 3. Plaintiff must file any second amended complaint, consistent with the terms of this 12 Order, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order; and 13 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for the preparation of 14 further findings and recommendations and/or other appropriate action. 15 16 17 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 18 Dated: _ March 27, 2025 4h 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scoggins v. Falcon Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scoggins-v-falcon-court-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack