Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03819/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03819-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAROL THOMAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING 

AUTHORITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-03819-EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

On July 7, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Carol Thomas filed a complaint and sought leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On July 13, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP request 

and indicated that it would separately determine compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which 

requires the court to “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal . . . is frivolous.” On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction. This 

Court therefore issues the following Report and Recommendation to dismiss the complaint sua 

sponte with leave to amend, and hereby reassigns the matter to a district court judge. 

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in 

either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). 

Dismissal on these grounds is often ordered sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to 

spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id., 

490 U.S. at 324, 109 S. Ct. at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the 

litigant's complaint frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give 

the litigant notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final 

dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 

Case 3:16-cv-03819-CRB Document 8 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff’s complaint against the San Francisco Housing Authority and Amanda Vernon 

mentions “disparate treatment based on race discrimination” but does not allege Plaintiff’s race or 

provide any factual basis for a claim of racial discrimination. Plaintiff also mentions retaliation 

based on a prior housing complaint, and alleges some actions taken against her including failing to 

correct an amount of money owed and refusing to pay for damage to her carpet, but the nexus 

between these actions and any earlier housing complaint is entirely unclear. The Complaint 

contains no allegations as to the individual defendant and it is unclear why this individual is a 

proper defendant. The Complaint fails to include a “short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court recommends that the case be dismissed. As Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se, the Court recommends giving her an opportunity to amend his complaint. 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

 Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the 

Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling (415) 782-8982 or signing up for an appointment on 

the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796. At the Legal Help Center, Plaintiffs may speak with 

an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal representation. The Court 

also urges Plaintiffs to obtain a copy of the Pro Se Handbook, available free of charge from the 

Court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov) or in the Clerk's Office on the 16th Floor, 450 Golden 

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 19, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-03819-CRB Document 8 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 2