Zeng v. Owner of 8020 Quartz Lane

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 7, 2026
• Docket: 25-40449
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-40449 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-40449 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 7, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Houhe Zeng, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Owner of 8020 Quartz Lane; FirstKey Homes, L.L.C.,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:25-CV-91 ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Houhe Zeng, a litigant proceeding pro se, filed suit against her landlord and property management company alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Texas Property Code. Specifically, Zeng alleges her olfactory impairment affected her ability to detect apartment odors and that the Defendants discriminated against her by refusing to make requested

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40449 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2026

No. 25-40449

repairs, including replacing moldy carpet and air conditioning filters. After granting Zeng leave to amend her complaint to cure its deficiencies, the district court dismissed her suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 1 She appeals the dismissal and challenges the denial of her motion to recuse or disqualify the district judge. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Co., 920 F.3d 890, 899 (5th Cir. 2019). The FHA outlaws discriminating “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Plaintiffs must allege facts to demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged discrimination and the disability. See Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 920 F.3d at 903. As Zeng did not plead specific facts showing a causal link between the alleged failure to make repairs and her purported disability, she has failed to establish causality for purposes of discrimination under the FHA, as we persuasively explained in Mason v. Integra Peak Mgmt. Inc., 821 F. App’x 382, 383 (5th Cir. 2020). Zeng argues that Defendants implemented exploitative practices nationwide to silence tenants. These claims were not raised in her amended complaint, and to the extent her later-filed letter alleging them could be construed as a motion to amend her complaint, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying it because Zeng lacks standing to bring such a claim. See NAACP v. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 2010); Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1993). She has abandoned any challenge to the ruling on her state law claims by failing to identify any error in the _____________________ 1 Zeng argues that the district court erred by enforcing a settlement agreement. This argument is meritless because the district court did not enforce a settlement agreement; it dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim.

2 Case: 25-40449 Document: 58-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2026

court’s analysis. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We review the denial of the motion to recuse or disqualify for abuse of discretion. United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 829 (5th Cir. 2007). As for her recusal motion, the judge’s adverse rulings are insufficient to show judicial bias. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994). Zeng has failed to show that the denial of her motion to recuse was an abuse of discretion because, apart from the court’s rulings, Zeng does not identify other evidence suggesting bias or deep-seated favoritism or that a reasonable person would otherwise doubt the judge’s impartiality. See id.; United States v. Brocato, 4 F.4th 296, 304 (5th Cir. 2021). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Zeng’s motion for summary disposition, to expedite the appeal, and to reassign the case in the event of a remand is DENIED.