Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03246/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03246-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARIA MILANO, 

Plaintiff. 

v. 

CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY OF 

RICHMOND CAL CONTRA COSTA 

COUNTY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-03246-JSW 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Re: Dkt. No. 3 

Plaintiff Maria Milano has applied to proceed with this lawsuit in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1915. The district court may deny IFP status and, even where the filing 

fee is paid, may dismiss a complaint if federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the 

complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an 

arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Where a 

complaint fails to state that any constitutional or statutory right was violated and fails to assert any 

basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, there is no arguable basis in law under Neitzke and the 

Court may dismiss the complaint under 19 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she “is filing a lawsuit against Richmond Housing 

Aut[hority], for wrongful termination of Section 8 Voucher housing, over a disputed with Section 

8 Landlord security deposit, I was wrongful termination with no good cause, that leave myself and 

family homeless living on the streets and motel over the past 3 years.” (Compl. ¶ 5.) The 

remainder of Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts and Claims describes injuries that Plaintiff alleges that 

she and her family have suffered, and the damages that Plaintiff seeks. (Id.) Plaintiff does not, 

however, provide any factual allegations that support her claim that the termination of her housing 

was wrongful or describe Defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct—the “who, what, where, and 

Case 4:16-cv-03246-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

when” of the events at issue. Nor has she alleged what law(s) or right(s) she believes that 

Defendant violated. This is not enough “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” 

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1988) (“Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”). 

If Plaintiff alleges that a municipal government entity had a policy or custom that violated 

her constitutional rights, she must allege facts supporting that claim. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social 

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); see also AE v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 

2012) (a plaintiff suing a municipal entity must allege sufficient facts regarding the specific nature 

of the allegedly unlawful policy, custom, or practice to allow the defendant to effectively defend 

itself, and these facts must plausibly suggest that plaintiff is entitled to relief). 

Plaintiff alleges that the wrongful termination took place three years ago. It is possible that 

a statute of limitations may bar Plaintiff’s claims as untimely. For example, if Plaintiff is suing 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court applies the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal 

injury torts, which, in California, is two years. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th 

Cir. 2004). The present complaint, however, lacks sufficient facts to determine the legal basis of 

Plaintiff’s claim(s) and thus, the applicable statute of limitations. In any amended complaint, 

Plaintiff should plead sufficient facts for the Court to determine when she knew or had reason to 

know of the injury that is the basis of her lawsuit, and whether there was any reason that the 

statute of limitations was tolled (or did not run) during the time before she filed suit. 

The Court also cannot discern the basis of federal court jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. Plaintiff does not allege any federal law or right that would give rise to federal 

question jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that her case “belongs in federal court under diversity 

jurisdiction because none of the plaintiffs live in the same state as any of the defendants and the 

amount of damages is more than $75,000.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The 

complaint, however, indicates that Plaintiff resides in Pinole, California, and that Defendant’s 

address is in Richmond, California, within the same state. In other words, the complaint gives no 

Case 4:16-cv-03246-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

reason to believe that diversity of citizenship exists. To establish diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff 

must set forth the facts that lead her to believe that she and Defendant are “citizens” of different 

states from each other. 

Additionally, although Plaintiff states that she is seeking $500,000,000, she provides no 

facts indicating that she has any good faith basis to believe that her claims could sustain a 

judgment of over $75,000. See Christensen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 529, 530-31 (9th 

Cir. 1980). In any amended Complaint, to support diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff must provide 

sufficient facts to support a good faith allegation that damages could exceed $75,000. 

Finally, Plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of her family. (Compl. ¶ 1(a).) However, 

Plaintiff, who is not an attorney, may not represent anyone other than herself. See Russell v. 

United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing in propria persona has no 

authority to represent anyone other than himself”). Any claim on behalf of anyone other than 

Plaintiff Maria Milano is also dismissed for this reason. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and DISMISSES the 

complaint without prejudice. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend if she can do so in 

good faith, consistent with the allegations of her original complaint, and in compliance with her 

obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by 

no later than July 14, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by that date, the Court 

will dismiss the case with prejudice and enter judgment. 

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, she may also file a renewed request to proceed IFP. 

The Court hereby VACATES the case management conference scheduled for September 

16, 2016. The case management conference may be re-set by separate order if Plaintiff files an 

amended complaint. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that the Court has a guide for pro se litigants called 

Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which is available 

online at http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook or in hard copy, free of charge, from the Clerk’s 

Office. 

Also, Plaintiff may make an appointment to speak with an attorney at the Legal Help 

Case 4:16-cv-03246-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Cen

not

app

Da

nter, free of

t representat

pointment. T

IT IS S

ated: June 16

charge. The

tion. Plaintif

The Legal H

SO ORDER

6, 2016 

e Legal Help

ff may call th

Help Center d

RED. 

4

p Center may

he Legal He

does not acco

___

JEF

Un

y be able to 

elp Center at

ommodate d

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

provide basi

t (415) 782-8

drop-ins. 

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

ic legal assis

8982 to sche

__________

ge 

stance, but 

edule an 

________ 

Case 4:16-cv-03246-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/16/16 Page 4 of 4