Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02780/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02780-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

BAMIDELE HAMBOLU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PCOF PM EQ, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

LYNN GAVIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING 

AUTHORITY, 

et al.,

 Defendants,

Case Nos. 15-cv-02780-RS, 15-cv-04097-RS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND DISMISSING CASES WITH 

PREJUDICE

Between 2012 and 2014, pro se plaintiffs Lynn Gavin and Bamidele Hambolu filed seven 

distinct but functionally identical civil actions in the Northern District of California.

1

 Hambolu v. 

Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC, No. 12-cv-3824-PJH; Gavin v. Murphy et al., No. 12-cv5864-RS; Gavin v. Arntz et al., No. 13-cv-0056-PJH; Hambolu v. San Francisco Housing 

Authority et al., No. 14-cv-3020-JSC; Gavin v. FCOF PM EQ LLC et al., No. 14-cv-4582-RS; 

Gavin v. Board of Supervisors Office et al., No. 14-cv-4583-RS, Hambolu et al. v. San Francisco 

 

1 According to plaintiffs’ allegations in Hambolu v. San Francisco Housing Authority, No. 14-cv4975-RS, Hambolu is Gavin’s son. Some cases have been brought by both Gavin and Hambolu, 

others by either Gavin or Hambolu. Each complaint has included a common—and, in many 

places, identical—body of allegations. 

Case 3:15-cv-02780-RS Document 23 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 4
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRO & DISMISSING ACTIONS WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO. 15-cv-02780-RS

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

Housing Authority et al., No. 14-cv-4975-RS. Each of the cases was predicated upon allegations 

that, in 2012, plaintiffs were wrongfully evicted from the Parkmerced apartments in San 

Francisco. Courts in this district have repeatedly dismissed plaintiffs’ actions, with generous leave 

to amend and, ultimately, with prejudice. On multiple occasions, plaintiffs have declined to 

observe court-imposed deadlines and have generally failed to prosecute their cases. The eighth 

and ninth iterations of the case—restated in slightly different form, against defendants new and

old—are now before this court. Plaintiffs seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).2

Where a party seeks leave to proceed IFP, the court has a continuing duty, under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), to dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines that the action fails to state a claim 

on which relief may be granted. The two complaints at issue here fail to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted and, in light of plaintiffs’ history in this district, border on frivolity. The 

following analysis, excerpted from a November 17, 2014 order of this court addressing three of 

plaintiffs’ related complaints, applies equally here:

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that to state a claim, a 

pleading must contain, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Supreme Court has made 

clear that while “showing” an entitlement to relief does not require “detailed 

factual allegations,” it does demand “more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[L]abels and 

conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” do 

not suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

Each of the three complaints fails to satisfy these requirements. They are not 

“short and plain” statements, but are instead filled with unnecessary and improper 

argument and citations. Inclusion of extraneous materials not only violates the 

spirit and letter of the rules, it also renders it nearly impossible to determine 

whether any allegations of fact buried within the rhetoric might support a viable 

claim against at least some defendants. In addition, while it is difficult to discern 

the precise nature of all of the claims plaintiffs may intend to assert, it is clear that 

many of their theories are simply not viable (and may even be precluded). See 

Gavin v. Arntz, No. C-13-0056-PJH, 2013 WL 4672763, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

30, 2013) (dismissing state law claims advanced by same plaintiff against 

government entities and officials for failure to plead requisite compliance with 

presentation requirements of Cal. Gov. Code §§ 945.4 and 950.2). Under these 

circumstances, dismissal of the three complaints is appropriate. 

 

2 Gavin has already been granted IFP status in the Hambolu matter, No. 15-cv-02780-RS. The 

issue has not yet been determined in the Gavin matter, No. 15-cv-04097-RS. 

Case 3:15-cv-02780-RS Document 23 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 4
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRO & DISMISSING ACTIONS WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO. 15-cv-02780-RS

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

Notably, plaintiffs have previously attempted, in actions dismissed with prejudice 

by this court, to assert many of these same claims against the same defendants. 

While plaintiffs were provided with ample opportunity to state cognizable claims 

in these prior actions, the cases were ultimately dismissed with prejudice. See 

Gavin v. Park Merced Investors Properties LLC, et al., No. C-12-05864-RS (N.D. 

Cal. April 29, 2013) (after providing plaintiff opportunity to amend complaint, 

dismissing claims with prejudice because “plaintiff has failed to amend her 

pleadings in such a way as to show she is entitled to legal relief”); Gavin v. Arntz, 

et al., No. C-13-0056-PJH, 2013 WL 4672763, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) 

(dismissing claims with prejudice because plaintiff “failed to take advantage of 

multiple opportunities” to “substantiate her claims in such a way as to show that 

she is entitled to relief”). Moreover, plaintiffs demonstrated little interest in 

prosecuting these prior actions beyond filing the initial complaints. See Arntz, 

2013 WL 4672763 (noting plaintiff’s continued failure to participate in 

proceedings despite notice of potential dismissal for failure to prosecute); 

Hambolu v. San Francisco Housing Authority, et al., No. 14-cv-03020-JSC (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 11, 2014) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute). 

Gavin et al. v. FCOF PM EQ LLC et al., No. 14-cv-4582-RS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014). Like the

highly-similar complaints dismissed on past occasions by courts in this district, plaintiffs’ present 

pleadings fail to state any viable claim. They must therefore be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

While pro se litigants are typically given the opportunity to amend deficient pleadings, 

leave may be denied where amendment would be futile. Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 

F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs’ lengthy and checkered history in this district, 

characterized by serial filings and a repeated failure to prosecute, demonstrates that leave to amend 

would be futile in these cases. (In late 2014, they were given leave to amend in three related cases 

but declined to take advantage of that opportunity. They have also been frequently encouraged to 

seek assistance from the Northern District’s Pro Se Help Desk; there is no indication that they have 

done so.) Accordingly, these related cases are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the 

files.

3

 

3

For the reasons stated in the June 25, 2015 order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary 

restraining order in the Hambolu matter (see 15-cv-2780-RS at Dkt. No. 7) their motion for a 

temporary restraining order in the Gavin matter is likewise denied. See 15-cv-4097-RS at Dkt. 

No. 3.

Case 3:15-cv-02780-RS Document 23 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 4
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRO & DISMISSING ACTIONS WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO. 15-cv-02780-RS

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02780-RS Document 23 Filed 09/16/15 Page 4 of 4