Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00252/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00252-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

LIZZIE McCAIN, No. CIV.S-05-0252 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ONIKA E. McGRIFF,

et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff Lizzie McCain is proceeding in this action pro se

and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order filed October 20, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was

dismissed and twenty days leave to amend was granted. Plaintiff has

timely filed an amended complaint.

The somewhat difficult to decipher amended complaint

indicates that plaintiff is attempting to pursue a housing

discrimination action against an apartment complex, Deliverance

Case 2:05-cv-00252-DFL-DAD Document 24 Filed 11/07/05 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

Temple Apartments, and its management. However, the amended

complaint alleges that the parties are located in Contra Costa

County, which is within the Northern District of California, and that

all of the events giving rise to this action occurred there. (See

Am. Compl. paras. 2, 4 & 5.) Therefore, “a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the

Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

A district court may dismiss any civil action filed in the

wrong district, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer the

case to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Oaks of

Woodlake Phase III, Ltd. v. Hall, Bayoutree Assocs., Ltd. (In re

Hall, Bayoutree, Assocs., Ltd.), 939 F.2d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed, as

opposed to transferred, for several reasons. First, while the

initial complaint listed Lizzie McCain as the sole plaintiff in this

action, the amended complaint purports to add numerous other

plaintiffs, including Lizzie McCain’s husband, children and

grandchildren. However, none of these other plaintiffs have signed

the complaint and a pro se litigant such as Ms. McCain cannot

represent another pro se litigant. Further, to the extent that any

of the family members are minors, Ms. McCain has not taken the

necessary steps to be appointed guardian ad litem so that she may

proceed on their behalf.

Additionally, the amended complaint, while making several

general references to discrimination based on race, color, marital

status and family status, repeatedly alleges that defendants have

Case 2:05-cv-00252-DFL-DAD Document 24 Filed 11/07/05 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

violated numerous provisions of the California Civil and Government

Codes with respect to housing. Breach of contract and intentional

infliction of emotion distress also are alleged. No violation of

federal law is alleged. Therefore, it appears that this action is

more properly pursued in state court.

Finally, the events alleged in the complaint occurred

during 2000 and 2001. Thus, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to

bring an action under the federal Fair Housing Act, this action,

which was initiated with the filing of the complaint on February 8,

2005, would appear to be untimely in light of the applicable two-year

statute of limitations. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A).

For all of these reasons, it would not be in the interest

of justice to transfer this action to the Northern District. Rather,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00252-DFL-DAD Document 24 Filed 11/07/05 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

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991). 

DATED: November 7, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\mcgriff0252.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-00252-DFL-DAD Document 24 Filed 11/07/05 Page 4 of 4