Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND 

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01699 TLN AC PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 

I. SCREENING 

 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the 

complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/currentrules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 8
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 

2 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 

the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 8
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 

3 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 

to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 

II. THE COMPLAINT 

 Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and two others, David Tyrone Samuel and A.I.M.S., a 

minor. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction based on the presence of a federal question 

and cites four federal laws: the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1301-19) (“FHA”), the 

Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §701), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101) 

(“ADA”), and the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559). Id. at 6. Plaintiff 

alleges that defendants “denied reasonable accommodation for change in room allocation on 

housing choice voucher despite acknowledging request was reasonable on grounds they were 

legally required to apply standards and practices ‘consistently for all families of like size and 

composition.’” Id. at 7. Plaintiff alleges that defendants sent a denial letter that proposed 

“alternate sleeping arrangements,” or that family members sleep in the living room, which does 

not meet the family’s needs. Id. at 8. 

 Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to make changes to their communications policies 

and failed to make services accessible by providing a phone number that did not allow for 

messages and an e-mail address that “did not respond.” Id. Plaintiff further alleges that 

defendants failed to provide a timely hearing regarding denial of her reasonable accommodations 

requests but did, after more than 60 days, offer an informal hearing attended by plaintiff and 

defendant SHRA. Id. Plaintiff was informed that the officer was unable to decide the case and a 

new hearing date would be scheduled. Id. At the second hearing, evidence was not allowed 

regarding reasonable accommodations, and the hearing officer required plaintiff to provide an 

explanation as to why sleeping in the living room would not satisfy the family’s needs. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants, as part of their documented policy, discriminate against 

//// 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 3 of 8
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 

4 

individuals based on type of disability. Id. Plaintiff asks for injunctive relief, $200,000 in 

compensatory damages, and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Id. at 9. 

III. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

 Plaintiff’s complaint contains several problems that must be fixed before it can be served. 

First, though plaintiff may represent herself as a pro se litigant, she may not represent other 

people. “A pro se plaintiff can only ‘prosecute his own action in propria persona,’ and ‘has no 

authority to prosecute an action in federal court on behalf of others.’” United States ex rel. Welch 

v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, 871 F.3d 791, 800 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Stoner v. 

Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007)). 

 Second, plaintiff fails to state a claim under any of the statutes named in the complaint. 

Plaintiff names the Fair Housing Act, which makes it unlawful for a housing provider “[t]o 

discriminate 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 of that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A). Plaintiff alleges that reasonable 

accommodations were not provided. To properly plead a failure to accommodate claim, a 

plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that: (1) she suffers from a handicap as defined in 42 

U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) the defendants knew or reasonably should have known of her handicap; (3) 

accommodation of the handicap “may be necessary” to afford the plaintiff an equal opportunity to 

use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) the defendants refused to make such accommodation. United 

States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997). The FHA defines 

a handicap as: “(1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of 

such person's major life activities, (2) a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being 

regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). Here, plaintiff does not provide 

any facts about the alleged disability, nor does she provide information about the proposed 

accommodations, the necessity of the accommodations, or the defendants’ refusal to make the 

accommodations. From the complaint, the court cannot tell whether plaintiff can state a claim 

under the FHA. 

//// 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 4 of 8
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 

5 

 Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to state a claim under the ADA. Title II of the ADA 

applies to public entities, and as the named defendants are a public entity and its employees, the 

court construes the ADA claim to be brought under Title II of the ADA. “To establish a violation 

of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; 

(2) she was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard to a 

public entity’s services, programs, or activities; and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was by 

reason of her disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). To recover 

money damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must also prove intentional discrimination 

on the part of any defendants. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The standard for intentional discrimination is deliberate indifference, which requires the plaintiff 

to show that the defendant knew “harm to a federally protected right [wa]s substantially likely” 

and failed to act upon that likelihood. Id. at 1139. As with the FHA claim, plaintiff does not 

allege the necessary facts in her complaint to state an ADA claim. 

Likewise, plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act prohibits “discrimination against all handicapped individuals....in employment, 

housing, transportation, education, health services, or any other Federally-aided programs.” 29 

U.S.C. § 794. To state a disability discrimination claim under Section 504, a plaintiff must 

allege: “(1) he is an ‘individual with a disability’; (2) he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to receive the 

benefit; (3) he was denied the benefit of the program solely by reason of his disability; and (4) the 

program receives federal financial assistance.” Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transp. Authority, 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997). Under the Rehabilitation Act, “disability” 

is defined as “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the 

major life activities of such individual, (B) a record of such an impairment, or (C) being regarded 

as having such an impairment.” Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 

2007). Again, plaintiff’s complaint does not contain the necessary information to demonstrate 

that she can state a Rehabilitation Act claim. 

Finally, plaintiff names the Administrative Procedures Act. The Administrative 

Procedures Act governs the procedures of federal administrative agencies. To the extent plaintiff 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 5 of 8
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 

6 

is challenging state and/or county services and benefits, this federal law does not apply. The 

complaint does not contain any facts which would suggest a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. 

has occurred. Based on the contents of the compliant, plaintiff does not state a claim under this 

statute, and the court believes that this statute likely does not apply to plaintiff’s set of 

circumstances. Because plaintiff fails to state any claim upon which relief could be granted, the 

complaint will not be served. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to submit an amended 

complaint. General instructions for submitting an amended complaint are below. 

IV. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 

establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain 

statement of each of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in 

sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one 

before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated 

anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” 

where possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their 

complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor 

(Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 

 Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid 

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what 

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor 

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should 

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff. 

 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 6 of 8
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 

7 

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 

what.” Id. at 1179. 

 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

V. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 

 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. The court cannot tell from your 

complaint what legal harm was done to you or if you can state a claim under federal law. The 

complaint as written does not provide enough facts to state a claim under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, or the Rehabilitation Act. Based on the information you 

have provided so far, the Administrative Procedures Act likely does not apply to your situation. 

You also cannot bring a lawsuit on behalf of anyone but yourself. Your lawsuit cannot proceed 

unless you fix the problems with your complaint. 

You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint that fixes the problems 

described above. If you submit an amended complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms what 

laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by whom and how, and how those violations impacted 

you. Without this information, the court cannot tell if you can state a claim against the 

defendants. If you do not submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the undersigned will 

recommend that the case be dismissed. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 7 of 8
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 

8 

2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 

names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions 

given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 

recommend that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: October 5, 2022 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 3 Filed 10/06/22 Page 8 of 8