Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05057/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05057-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACEY N. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TNDC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05057-PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH 

PREJUDICE

On August 17, 2018, plaintiff Tracey Thompson filed an application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a complaint. Dkts. 1–2. On September 13, 2018, 

Magistrate Judge Ryu issued a report and recommendation recommending that the 

complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 5. Judge Ryu 

explained that “[t]his is an action for wrongful eviction” of Thompson from “Civic Center 

Residence (Civic Center), a housing complex owned and operated by Defendant 

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC).” Dkt. 5 at 1. Judge Ryu 

concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction over the action pursuant to federal 

subject-matter jurisdiction because no cause of action or claim was alleged under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, even though the allegations “strongly 

suggest that TNDC is a non-profit California corporation that may receive federal 

funding.” Id. at 3–4. Judge Ryu reasoned that “[t]he mere existence of federal funds in a 

case does not, by itself, create a federal question.” Id. at 4. Instead, “Thompson alleges 

a claim for wrongful eviction, which arises under state law.” Id. at 4. Judge Ryu also 

found that diversity of citizenship does not exist sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction 

Case 4:18-cv-05057-PJH Document 20 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

because both plaintiff and defendant TNDC are citizens of California. Id. at 4–5. 

Plaintiff did not object to the report and recommendation, and on December 21,

2018, this court issued an order adopting it “in every respect.” Dkt. 14. This court 

dismissed the action with leave to amend and set a deadline for plaintiff to file any 

amended complaint by February 4, 2019. Id. The court ordered that plaintiff could not 

add any claims or parties without leave. Id.

On January 3 and 4, 2019, Thompson submitted materials that this court 

construed as a motion for intra-division transfer of the case from Oakland to San 

Francisco. Because the case had been dismissed, there was (and remains) no pending 

complaint to transfer. On March 13, 2019, this court issued an order to show cause 

requiring plaintiff to show why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure 

to amend the complaint by the February 4 deadline, and for failure to prosecute the 

action. Dkt. 17. The order to show cause and any amended complaint were due by April 

19, 2019.

On March 18, 2019, the court received a letter from Thompson dated March 15, 

2019. In it, Thompson stated that defendant is a federally subsidized hotel, she has 

photographs showing her apartment is inhabitable, maintenance workers at the 

apartment would not help her, the sheriff posted a notice to vacate, the apartment 

manager will not let her pick up all of her things, and there were tarantulas in the sink 

pipes. Dkt. 19.

The court understands that plaintiff’s health problems contributed to her failure to 

meet the February deadline to amend her complaint, and the order to show cause is 

discharged. However, plaintiff has still failed to state a claim over which this court has 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims continue to suffer from the same deficiencies as her original 

complaint, which were identified by Judge Ryu and adopted by this court. Plaintiff has 

provided no indication that any of the parties are not citizens of California for purposes of 

diversity jurisdiction, nor has she alleged any cause of action arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for purposes of federal question 

Case 4:18-cv-05057-PJH Document 20 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

jurisdiction. Plaintiff continues to allege that the apartment building at the center of her 

complaint is federally funded, but for the reasons explained previously that is insufficient 

to establish this court’s jurisdiction. Given that plaintiff has had ample opportunity to 

amend her complaint, and because it does not appear that she could allege any facts 

establishing this court’s jurisdiction over the case even if given further opportunity, this 

action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-05057-PJH Document 20 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 3