Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02315/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02315-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY WALKER, No. CIV S-06-2315-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action against various individuals

and business entities claiming “conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit fraud,

conspiracy to endanger my life.” 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must

dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 

Case 2:06-cv-02315-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

matter . . . .” Because plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court

will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).

Plaintiff alleges that the business entities named as defendants “are involved in a

conspiracy of retaliation.” She states that the business defendants purposefully refuse to do

business with her and that this is endangering her survival. Plaintiff claims that employees of

these businesses have, on at least three occasions, attempted to run her over with their cars and

have also assaulted and harassed her. 

She also references a conciliation agreement with the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development, and alleges that this agreement is being breached by various

defendants. Plaintiff states that she has not received a response from the United States Attorney

General concerning this alleged breach. 

She also asserts that the mayor of the City of Mount Shasta, Tim Stearns, is also

involved. Specifically, she claims that, on May 8, 2006, shortly after the conciliation agreement

went into effect, she was attacked outside the Cabaret Coffee House “ten minutes after the

Mayor Tim Stearns had left.” She claims that the City of Mount Shasta police have refused to

allow her press charges.

Plaintiff summarizes her claims as follows:

I believe there has been retaliation not only for returning to my home in

Mt. Shasta on May 8, 2006, and the Conciliation agreement with HUD,

but also because of two other lawsuits regarding the May 8, 2006, attack

against me. False charges have been brought against me by an employee

of Stage Door Cabaret Coffee House in retaliation, three months after the

police dropped the case and after I had sent interrogatories and a motion to

compel answers to State Door Cabaret Coffee House & Trinity Café. I did

this to find out who the people were that attacked me and pursue legal

action. 

I am asking the court for my legal right as a citizen of the United States to

use the health food stores and restaurants of Mount Shasta CA because

health food is the kind of food I eat. [¶] I am also asking the court for my

legal right to my HUD apartment at Alta Vista Manor Apartments 625

Marjorie St. Mount Shasta CA returned to me without the offending

manager Richard Miller present. 

Case 2:06-cv-02315-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

It appears that the underlying basis of plaintiff’s complaint is her assertion that

the conciliation agreement has been breached. This court, however, is not the proper venue to

allege breach of the agreement, at least not at the present time. According to the copy of the

agreement attached to plaintiff’s complaint, the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(“HUD”) monitors compliance and, if a breach is suspected, HUD would refer the matter to the

United States Attorney General for enforcement of the agreement. Thus, any enforcement action

would be brought by the Attorney General and not plaintiff herself. 

As to plaintiff’s contention that certain business entities in the City of Mount

Shasta are refusing to do business with her, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of federal law or

her constitutional rights. Plaintiff merely claims that the business entity defendants are

excluding her from the “world of commerce” and that this somehow violates her federal

constitutional rights. However, none of the business entity defendants are state actors and

plaintiff has not alleged racial discrimination such that the Civil Rights Act would appear to

apply. To the extent plaintiff alleges that these entities have committed crimes against her, such

contentions are properly investigated and pursued by state and local law enforcement, not this

court. 

Finally, plaintiff mentions that “false charges” have been brought against her. To

the extent this refers to ongoing criminal action against plaintiff, this court would be precluded

from interjecting itself while such proceedings are pending. 

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

Case 2:06-cv-02315-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint must

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must allege some basis for

this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, and in the context of what the court can

glean from the original complaint, plaintiff must allege some violation of federal law or of the

federal constitution. The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between each defendant’s

actions and the claimed violation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 11-110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to

comply with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b). See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a first amended

complaint. 

DATED: May 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02315-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 05/24/07 Page 4 of 4