Troy King v. Julia Owner LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03686
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Troy King, No. CV-25-03686-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Julia Owner LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Troy King filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma 16 pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) King is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis but granting that 17 application allows the court to determine whether the complaint states any claims on which 18 he might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It does not. 19 I. Factual Background 20 King is a Black male who in July 2021 “entered into a lease agreement with The 21 Julia Owner LLC,” the owner of an apartment complex. (Doc. 1 at 3.) King “encountered 22 racism” during his initial attempt to rent an apartment but after a complaint to “the regional 23 manager,” he rented “a unit at the rate agreed upon.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) In September 2021, 24 King went to the rental office to inform them that his son was no longer allowed in the unit 25 due to a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 1 at 3.) During this visit King “witnessed The 26 Julia’s staff conspiring to charge him more, while quoting a White family a lower rate.” 27 (Doc. 1 at 4.) King does not provide any additional facts regarding this event, but he filed 28 a complaint with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office based on what he witnessed. (Doc. 1 1 at 4.) It is not clear what became of that complaint but King continued to live at the 2 apartment complex. 3 In August 2023, a new management company took over management of the 4 apartment complex for The Julia. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Around this time King attempted to execute 5 a lease renewal to run from October 1, 2023 through September 29, 2024. (Doc. 1 at 4.) At 6 this point King’s allegations become particularly difficult to follow. 7 According to King, “the annual lease renewal was fraudulently denied” by the new 8 management company. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Unidentified “malicious actions” by the management 9 company “render[ed] the lease non-binding.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Although he emphasizes the 10 lease meant to begin on October 1, 2023 was not valid, King admits he was still living in 11 the apartment as of early October when the management company “conspired to remove 12 [King] from the property due to his filing government complaints . . . for racial 13 discrimination and harassment.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) King does not identify the complaints he is 14 referencing but he may be referencing the complaint he had filed with the Arizona Attorney 15 General two years earlier. 16 On October 5, 2023, The Julia “filed fraudulent court documents in an Immediate 17 Eviction process and made disparaging racial statements to deceive the judicial machinery 18 into ruling in their favor.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) King does not identify the “disparaging racial 19 statements” but he attached to his complaint a copy of the “Immediate Termination Notice” 20 dated October 6, 2023. (Doc. 1 at 16.) That notice demanded King vacate the apartment 21 because he had engaged in “threatening and intimidating actions toward another resident 22 by threatening them with a sledgehammer, destruction of property.” (Doc. 1 at 16.) 23 In December 2023, an agent of the Julia “provided truthful testimony during 24 Plaintiff’s civil standby1 while accompanied by a Mesa Police Officer.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) 25 Despite labeling the testimony as “truthful,” King then describes it as “part of a malicious, 26 1 King appears to be referring to a “civil standby” as defined in State v. Groves, No. 1 CA- 27 CR 22-0384, 2023 WL 2885049, at *1 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2023) (“A ‘civil standby’ generally involves the presence of law enforcement to maintain peace when parties to a 28 dispute are hostile toward one another but must be at the same location, such as when one party is lawfully retrieving personal property from the other party’s residence.”). 1 racially motivated attempt to deceive the judicial system and racialize the proceedings, 2 rooted in a history of violence and oppression targeting people of Plaintiff’s race and 3 gender.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) King does not explain why he believes “truthful testimony” was 4 part of a racially-motivated attack on him. 5 In January 2024, an unidentified agent of The Julia made a “racially charged rant” 6 in an “untruthful statement to the Arizona State Bar.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) There is no explanation 7 whether King is referencing the Arizona State Bar—the entity that regulates the practice 8 of law in Arizona—or if he is equating the Arizona State Bar with the state court system. 9 Regardless, King quotes the “racially charged rant” when an agent of The Julia “stated that 10 there was a witness who would support the allegations in the breach notice. However, this 11 witness refused to testify for fear of retaliation.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) King believes this statement 12 was a “masterpiece of mendacity,” but he does not explain why that statement was racially- 13 charged or mendacious. 14 In November 2024, King discovered The Julia and its agents “had been altering 15 court documents.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) He provides no additional facts explaining this allegation. 16 Similarly, King alleges “Columbia Debt Recover dba Genesis requested a signed copy of 17 the lease, which was refused by The Julia.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) There is no explanation how this 18 other entity figures into King’s claims or how a request by that entity for the lease is 19 relevant to them. 20 After this factual background King’s complaint includes multiple pages asserting— 21 without additional factual elaboration—how outrageous The Julia’s actions were. For 22 example, King alleges The Julia “willfully, systemically, and reprehensibly violated the 23 Civil Rights Act of 1964” by engaged in “egregious racial harassment and discrimination.” 24 (Doc. 1 at 5.) The Julia also “brazenly, maliciously, and egregiously violated 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1981.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) And The Julia engaged in “outright, brazen obstruction of justice— 26 an egregious and criminal conduct that strikes at the core of the judicial process.” (Doc. 1 27 at 7-8.) After those pages King lists the seven claims he wishes to pursue: 28 1. Fair Housing Act (“FHA”); 1 2. 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 2 3. Arizona Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”); 3 4. “Tort of Fraud”; 4 5. Obstruction of Justice; 5 6. “Conspiracy (Civil Tort), A.R.S. § 12-1801”; and 6 7. “Harassment (Based on Racial Discrimination)[.]” (Doc. 1 at 9–13.) 7 II. Screening Standard 8 King may pursue his claims only if the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, 9 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 10 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 11 (internal citations omitted)). This is not a “probability requirement,” but a requirement that 12 the factual allegations show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 13 unlawfully.” Id. A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 14 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 15 misconduct alleged.” Id. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is “a 16 context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience 17 and common sense.” Id. at 679. 18 III. King’s Claims 19 Some of King’s seven claims are not supported by sufficient factual allegations 20 while others are premised on legal theories that are not viable. All seven claims are 21 dismissed with limited leave to amend. 22 A. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Arizona Civil Rights Act 23 King alleges claims under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and ACRA. It appears King 24 is basing these claims on the failure to renew his lease in September 2023 and events in 25 October 2023 involving the “Immediate Eviction” process.2 (Doc. 1 at 4.) But regardless

26 2 King also may be claiming the actions taken against him were in retaliation for his “filing government complaints.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) But the only government complaint referenced in 27 the complaint was filed in 2021 and the allegedly retaliatory actions occurred two years later. King has not provided any plausible allegations linking his “government complaint” 28 in 2021 to the events in 2023. To the extent King is attempting to pursue a retaliation-based claim, that claim is also dismissed. San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 1 of which events King bases these claims on, stating a claim under the FHA, § 1981, and 2 ACRA requires allegations indicating the defendant engaged in intentional discrimination.3 3 King has not alleged any facts supporting his assertion The Julia’s actions were based on 4 his race. 5 King alleges the refusal to renew his lease and the “Immediate Eviction” process 6 involved “disparaging racial statements” and a “racially charged rant.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) But 7 King does not include any statements that could plausibly be interpreted as disparaging or 8 “racially charged.” The only statement King includes in his complaint—which he identifies 9 as “racially charged”—is the statement discussed earlier that a “witness refused to testify 10 for fear of retaliation.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) This statement has no obvious connection to King’s 11 race. And with no other supporting facts indicating the relevant actions were taken because 12 of King’s race, the statement does not provide a sufficient basis for King’s race 13 discrimination claims. If King believes the refusal to renew his lease and to pursue his 14 eviction were because of his race, he must provide facts making such claims plausible. The 15 FHA, § 1981, and ACRA claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 16 B. “Tort of Fraud” 17 King’s next claim is identified as the “tort of fraud.” (Doc. 1 at 11.) Federal Rule of 18 Civil Procedure 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading standard for claims involving fraud. 19 “To properly plead fraud . . . a pleading must identify the who, what, when, where, and 20 how of the misconduct charged.” In re Cloudera, Inc., 121 F.4th 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2024) 21 (simplified). This requires “an account of the time, place, and specific content of the false 22 representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.” Id. 23 (simplified). This is a difficult standard to meet, and King has not done so. 24 King does not provide any specific details regarding the allegedly fraudulent acts.

25 470, 477 (9th Cir. 1998) (FHA retaliation claim requires the adverse events be “causally linked” to protected activity). 26 3 See Ave. 6E Invs., LLC v. City of Yuma, Ariz., 818 F.3d 493, 502 (9th Cir. 2016) (FHA “prohibits intentional discrimination”); Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Assoc. of Afr. Am.-Owned 27 Media, 589 U.S. 327, 337, 341 (2020) (Section 1981 requires a plaintiff “initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, [he] would not have suffered the loss of a legally 28 protected right”); Canady v. Prescott Canyon Ests. Homeowners Ass’n, 60 P.3d 231, 233 n.3 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (Arizona’s Fair Housing Act is “virtually identical” to the FHA). 1 Instead King’s complaint makes only vague statement that that “The Julia Owner LLC and 2 their agents” engaged in harmful activities. (Doc. 1 at 8.) And in the specific portion of the 3 complaint devoted to the “tort of fraud,” King alleges “The Defendant and their agent(s)” 4 fabricated documents, made “false representations,” and omitted “material facts.” (Doc. 1 5 at 11.) Such conclusory and vague allegations are not sufficient. To state a claim for fraud 6 King must identify the specific individuals, the specific documents, the specific 7 representations, and the specific omissions that establish he was the victim of fraud. Having 8 failed to do so, the fraud claim is dismissed with leave to amend. 9 C. “Obstruction of Justice” 10 King’s claim appears to be brought as a criminal claim for obstruction of justice. 11 King is a private citizen who cannot institute criminal proceedings. See State v. Lamberton, 12 899 P.2d 939, 942 (Ariz. 1995) (“[n]o private citizen, however personally aggrieved, may 13 institute criminal proceedings independently”); Scherer v. United States, 241 F. Supp. 2d 14 1270, 1282 (D. Kan. 2003) (“Federal courts have consistently denied a private civil right 15 of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, the criminal statute against jury tampering, witness 16 intimidation, and obstruction of justice.”). The obstruction of justice claim is dismissed 17 without leave to amend. 18 D. “Conspiracy (Civil Tort) A.R.S. § 12-1801 19 King’s next claim is titled “Conspiracy (Civil Tort), A.R.S. § 12-1801.” The cited 20 statute outlines when judges of state courts “may grant writs of injunction.” A.R.S. § 12- 21 1801. That has no obvious connection to King’s claims. Assuming the statutory citation 22 was in error and King is attempting to bring a state-law claim for conspiracy, such a claim 23 requires sufficient allegations showing “two or more individuals agree[d] and thereupon 24 accomplish[ed] an underlying tort which the alleged conspirators agreed to commit.” Wells 25 Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Loc. No. 395 Pension Tr. 26 Fund, 38 P.3d 12, 36 (Ariz. 2002). King has not alleged an underlying tort, so his 27 conspiracy claim is dismissed with leave to amend. 28 1 E. Harassment (Based on Racial Discrimination) 2 King’s final claim is for “harassment” by The Julia and its agents that “included racial trope [sic], intimidation, retaliatory actions, and the creation of a hostile living 4|| environment.” (Doc. | at 13.) The court has been unable to locate any authority establishing || “harassment” as a tort in Arizona. See Rivera v. Town of Patagonia, No. CV-16-00164- TUC-CKJ, 2016 WL 11693697, at *9 (D. Ariz. Aug. 10, 2016) (“Ms. Rivera does not point || to any Arizona case that has recognized a civil cause of action for harassment.”). Arizona 8 || law recognizes criminal harassment, but as a private party King cannot pursue criminal 9|| charges against The Julia. Jd. King’s harassment claim is dismissed without leave to 10 || amend. 11 IV. Leave to Amend 12 King is granted leave to file an amended complaint. King may amend his claims 13 || under the FHA, § 1981, ACRA, fraud, and conspiracy. King may not amend his claims for obstruction of justice or “harassment.” If King chooses to amend, he must provide a much 15 || more understandable and detailed recital of the basic facts that support his claims. 16 IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH || LIMITED LEAVE TO AMEND. No later than October 31, 2025, King shall file an 19 || amended complaint consistent with the instructions above. The Clerk of Court is directed || to enter a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint is filed by that date. 22 Dated this 20th day of October, 2025. 23 24 Vy, op a | Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 26 United States District Judge 27 28

-7-