1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUSAN SHULTZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00507-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT 14 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL, May 26, 2023, DEADLINE 15 Defendants.
16 17 18 Plaintiff, Susan Shultz, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis initiated this 19 action on April 29, 2022, by filing a form “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights.” (Doc. No. 20 1, “Complaint”). Plaintiff’s Complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2)(B). 22 I. Screening Requirement 23 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in form pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case “at any 24 time” if the Court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim 25 on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 26 such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) -(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129 27 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all litigants proceeding in form pauperis). A 28 complaint, however, should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 1 prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. 2 Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 996 (1997). A complaint must 3 include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. 4 R. Civ. P. 8(a). Dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by the same 5 standard as dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 6 F. 3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to 7 state a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 8 “A complaint is plausible on its face when it contains sufficient facts to support a reasonable 9 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, the court 10 accepts the facts stated in the complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 U.S. 738, 11 740 (1976). The Court does not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, 12 unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 13 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor are legal conclusions considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 14 Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court must liberally construe the Complaint in the 15 light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Bernhardt 16 v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If a pleading could be cured by the allegation 17 of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 18 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. 19 Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the Court to 20 advise a litigant on how to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role 21 as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d 22 at 1131 n.13. 23 II. Summary of Complaint 24 The Complaint names the following Defendants: (1) The Department of Justice, Civil 25 Rights Division, Washington D.C., (2) The Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 26 Bakersfield, (3) Joshua Shotwell, Kern County Sheriff Department, and (4) Kern County Office 27 28 1 of Administration. (Id. at 2-3). 1 Under the “Basis of Jurisdiction” section of the Complaint, 2 Plaintiff checks “State or local officials (a § 1983 claim). Plaintiff alleges her Fourteenth 3 Amendment equal protection and due process rights were violated. (Id. at 3). The gravamen of 4 the Complaint is that, on or about April 14, 2020, Plaintiff was “displaced by a government 5 project” and not relocated. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff states she was denied housing under Cal. Gov. 6 Code 7260.5. because she was not part of a “special protected group,” which resulted in her being 7 homeless. (Id.). Due to being homeless, she lost her job and was “accused of trespassing in an 8 unsafe building.” (Id. 4-5). As result, Plaintiff lost her personal property, her livelihood and 9 “good standing.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiff seeks various forms of nonmonetary relief, including, inter 10 alia, restoration of her “public good standing” and “rights of citizenship . . . recognized as worthy 11 of protection under the law,” equal treatment despite not being in a “special group,” and to not be 12 ignored by the government. (Id. at 6-7). 13 III. Analysis 14 The Court liberally construes the Complaint as attempting to state a claim under the Fair 15 Housing (the “Act”). Generally, the Act “bars discriminatory housing policies and practices” 16 based on “certain protected characteristics or traits.” SW. Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Maricopa 17 Domestic Water Improvement Dist., 17 F.4th 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2021). The Act provides a 18 private right of action for an ‘aggrieved person’ subjected to ‘an alleged discriminatory housing 19 practice,’ 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A), including a practice that violates § 3604.” Cabrera v. 20 Alvarez, 977 F. Supp. 2d 969, 975 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Among other things, the Act makes it 21 unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate 22 for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because 23 of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 24 To state a claim for discrimination under § 3604(a), a party must allege that (1) they are a 25 member of protected class; (2) they were denied the sale or rent of a dwelling after making a bona 26 fide offer, was refused negotiations concerning the sale or rental of a dwelling, or that a dwelling 27 1 The Court refers to the CMECF page numbers of the Complaint. In this case, the CMECF page numbers 28 correspond to the same page numbers on the Complaint. 1 was otherwise made unavailable or denied to plaintiff; and (3) plaintiff’s protected class was a 2 motivating factor for the discriminatory conduct. See Shultz v. Kern Cnty., No. 2:22-CV-00397- 3 KJM-AC (PS), 2022 WL 658140, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022) (offering similar formulation of 4 prima facie case for claims brought under § 3604(b)); see also SW.
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 SUSAN SHULTZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00507-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT 14 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL, May 26, 2023, DEADLINE 15 Defendants.
16 17 18 Plaintiff, Susan Shultz, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis initiated this 19 action on April 29, 2022, by filing a form “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights.” (Doc. No. 20 1, “Complaint”). Plaintiff’s Complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2)(B). 22 I. Screening Requirement 23 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in form pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case “at any 24 time” if the Court determines, inter alia, the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim 25 on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 26 such relief. 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) -(iii); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129 27 (9th Cir. 2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all litigants proceeding in form pauperis). A 28 complaint, however, should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 1 prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him to relief. Johnson v. 2 Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 996 (1997). A complaint must 3 include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. 4 R. Civ. P. 8(a). Dismissal for failure to state a claim in this context is governed by the same 5 standard as dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 6 F. 3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to 7 state a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 8 “A complaint is plausible on its face when it contains sufficient facts to support a reasonable 9 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. At this stage, the court 10 accepts the facts stated in the complaint as true. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 425 U.S. 738, 11 740 (1976). The Court does not accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, 12 unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 13 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor are legal conclusions considered facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 14 Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court must liberally construe the Complaint in the 15 light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Bernhardt 16 v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). If a pleading could be cured by the allegation 17 of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 18 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. 19 Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the Court to 20 advise a litigant on how to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role 21 as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d 22 at 1131 n.13. 23 II. Summary of Complaint 24 The Complaint names the following Defendants: (1) The Department of Justice, Civil 25 Rights Division, Washington D.C., (2) The Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 26 Bakersfield, (3) Joshua Shotwell, Kern County Sheriff Department, and (4) Kern County Office 27 28 1 of Administration. (Id. at 2-3). 1 Under the “Basis of Jurisdiction” section of the Complaint, 2 Plaintiff checks “State or local officials (a § 1983 claim). Plaintiff alleges her Fourteenth 3 Amendment equal protection and due process rights were violated. (Id. at 3). The gravamen of 4 the Complaint is that, on or about April 14, 2020, Plaintiff was “displaced by a government 5 project” and not relocated. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff states she was denied housing under Cal. Gov. 6 Code 7260.5. because she was not part of a “special protected group,” which resulted in her being 7 homeless. (Id.). Due to being homeless, she lost her job and was “accused of trespassing in an 8 unsafe building.” (Id. 4-5). As result, Plaintiff lost her personal property, her livelihood and 9 “good standing.” (Id. at 5). Plaintiff seeks various forms of nonmonetary relief, including, inter 10 alia, restoration of her “public good standing” and “rights of citizenship . . . recognized as worthy 11 of protection under the law,” equal treatment despite not being in a “special group,” and to not be 12 ignored by the government. (Id. at 6-7). 13 III. Analysis 14 The Court liberally construes the Complaint as attempting to state a claim under the Fair 15 Housing (the “Act”). Generally, the Act “bars discriminatory housing policies and practices” 16 based on “certain protected characteristics or traits.” SW. Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Maricopa 17 Domestic Water Improvement Dist., 17 F.4th 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2021). The Act provides a 18 private right of action for an ‘aggrieved person’ subjected to ‘an alleged discriminatory housing 19 practice,’ 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A), including a practice that violates § 3604.” Cabrera v. 20 Alvarez, 977 F. Supp. 2d 969, 975 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Among other things, the Act makes it 21 unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate 22 for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because 23 of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). 24 To state a claim for discrimination under § 3604(a), a party must allege that (1) they are a 25 member of protected class; (2) they were denied the sale or rent of a dwelling after making a bona 26 fide offer, was refused negotiations concerning the sale or rental of a dwelling, or that a dwelling 27 1 The Court refers to the CMECF page numbers of the Complaint. In this case, the CMECF page numbers 28 correspond to the same page numbers on the Complaint. 1 was otherwise made unavailable or denied to plaintiff; and (3) plaintiff’s protected class was a 2 motivating factor for the discriminatory conduct. See Shultz v. Kern Cnty., No. 2:22-CV-00397- 3 KJM-AC (PS), 2022 WL 658140, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022) (offering similar formulation of 4 prima facie case for claims brought under § 3604(b)); see also SW. Fair Housing Council, Inc., 5 17 F.4th at 972 (noting that “allegations that discrimination was a motivating factor behind a 6 defendant’s actions are essential to plead a disparate-treatment claim”); Thomas v. San Francisco 7 Housing Auth., No. 3:16-CV-03819-CRB, 2017 WL 878064, at *4 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2017) 8 (noting that prima facie elements of fair housing claim must be pled). 9 As noted above, Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of 10 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit 11 has concluded that, “to be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or 12 counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient 13 allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself 14 effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the Complaint falls within 15 “[o]ne well-known type of violation” of Rule 8, the “pleading says too little.” Knapp v. Hogan, 16 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original). 17 While Plaintiff complains in her Complaint that she was displaced, the Complaint does 18 not state prima facie claim under the Fair Housing Act. Further the Complaint contains no factual 19 allegations to give any Defendant fair notice of what any Defendant did to violate Plaintiff’s 20 rights. Without knowing what facts support Plaintiff’s claims, a Defendant cannot effectively 21 respond to the Complaint. As currently pled, the Complaint does not contain enough factual 22 details to permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that any named Defendant is liable 23 for any misconduct to sustain a federal violation under the Fair Housing Act. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 24 678. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not comply with the requirements of Rule 25 8(a)(2). 26 Further Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403, 27 U.S. 388 (1971) does not provide a remedy for a violation of civil rights by federal actors for this 28 action. Thus, no action can be stated against the United States Department of Justice. 1 Further, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim under Cal. Gov. Code 7260.5, 2 Plaintiff is informed that Cal.Gov. Code 7260.5 provides in relevant part, “b) This chapter 3 establishes a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a direct 4 result of programs or projects undertaken by a public entity.” Cal.Gov. Code 7260.5(b). 5 The California Relocation Assistance Act represents a “legislative recognition of the need to 6 compensate for certain business losses which occur as a result of a condemnation action.” Los 7 Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Casasola, 187 Cal. App. 4th 189, 204, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318, 328 8 (2010) (“the only judicial remedy lies in petitioning the superior court for relief in administrative 9 mandamus ...”). Thus, the cited Government Code section does not authorize a private cause of 10 action in federal court. 11 IV. Conclusion and Options 12 To continue the prosecution of this action, Plaintiff must take one of the following three 13 options on or before May 26, 2023. First Option: Because the Court cannot determine that the 14 filing of an amended complaint cannot cure the deficiencies identified above, the Court will 15 afford Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint if he chooses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 15(a)(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). An amended complaint 17 supersedes (replaces) the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be free- 18 standing and complete. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 19 banc); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 20 sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should title “First Amended Complaint,” include 21 the above case number, and be an original signed and dated under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff 22 may not change the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims in his amended complaint. 23 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Second Option: 24 Plaintiff may file a Notice stating she intends to stand on her current complaint subject to the 25 undersigned recommending the district court dismiss for the reasons stated in this Order. Third 26 Option: Because no defendant has yet been served, Plaintiff may file a Notice of Voluntarily 27 Dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Alternatively, if 28 Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Court Order, i.e., fails to perform any of the three options, 1 | the undersigned will instead recommend that the district court dismiss this case as a sanction for 2 | Plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order and for failing to prosecute this action. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 1. On or before May 26, 2023, Plaintiff shall take one of the following actions: (a) 5 | file a First Amended Complaint; (b); file a Notice that Plaintiff intends to stand on the Complaint 6 | as screened subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss this action for the 7 | reasons stated in this Order; (c) file a Notice to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice 8 | under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. 9 2. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Court Order or seek an extension of 10 | time to comply, the Court will recommend the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiff's 11 | failure to comply with this Court Order and prosecute this action. 12 3. The Clerk of Court shall include a blank non-prisoner civil rights complaint form 13 | for Plaintiffs use as appropriate. 14 ' | Dated: _ April 24, 2023 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28