Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03819/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03819-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING

AUTHORITY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. 3:16-cv-03819-CRB

ORDER DISMISSING WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

In her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff Carol Thomas, appearing pro se,

seeks $400,000 in damages from the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) and an

individual defendant (collectively “Defendants”) for alleged racial discrimination and

retaliation. FAC (dkt. 14) at 2, 6. This Court dismisses the FAC sua sponte with leave to

amend.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge Laporte granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). Order Regarding Appl. to Proceed IFP (dkt. 6); see also Appl. to

Proceed IFP (dkt. 3). After Plaintiff declined magistrate jurisdiction, see Declination (dkt.

7), on July 19, 2016, Magistrate Judge Laporte recommended dismissal of the Complaint,

Compl. (dkt. 1), with leave to amend and directed that the case be reassigned to a district 

Case 3:16-cv-03819-CRB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

court judge. Report and Recommendation (dkt. 8) at 1 (“R&R”); see Order Reassigning

Case (dkt. 9). The case was reassigned to this Court.

Magistrate Judge Laporte recommended that the case be dismissed because the

Complaint failed to state Plaintiff’s own race or otherwise “provide any factual basis” for the

discrimination claim. See R&R at 2; Compl. Further, Magistrate Judge Laporte held that the

Complaint failed to establish a nexus between a prior housing-discrimination allegation and

the actions taken against Plaintiff germane to the current case, and that it failed to provide the

required “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). This Court adopted Magistrate Judge Laporte’s

recommendation and gave Plaintiff leave to amend. Order Adopting R&R (dkt. 12).

On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed the FAC.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint filed by any person proceeding, or seeking to proceed, IFP under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory sua sponte review and dismissal if the complaint is

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

monetary relief from a defendant immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000).

To state a claim, a complaint must state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation

that discovery will reveal evidence of the claim. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

556. Dismissal is also appropriate when the complaint “lack[s] . . . a cognizable legal

theory.” Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). A

complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although it need not contain “detailed

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements

of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotations omitted in original)

(citations omitted). The complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

Case 3:16-cv-03819-CRB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Indeed, it is also unclear if the FAC seeks relief for the apartment-transfer discrimination claim

administratively dismissed on September 17, 2014, FAC at 3–4, or whether said claim merely serves

as background for the more recent set of allegations.

3

to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). It must include “factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

The district court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and construe them in

the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., ARC Ecology v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force,

411 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). However, pro se litigants are “not

excused from knowing the most basic pleading requirements.” Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic

Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

This Court is now obligated to conduct a mandatory sua sponte review of the FAC

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Although the FAC expanded upon the Complaint with

some factual background and addressed the issue of jurisdiction, it is still legally insufficient

under Rule 8(a).

A. The Facts

The FAC does not provide the requisite facts necessary for this Court to reasonably

infer that Defendants are liable under either claim. Besides stating Plaintiff’s and the

individual defendant’s races, FAC at 2, the FAC does not adequately address the deficiencies

that Magistrate Judge Laporte identified in the Complaint. See R&R at 2. While Plaintiff

recounts being denied a transfer from a studio to a one-bedroom unit within the SFHAoperated building and filing an administrative complaint, FAC at 3–4, she does not explain

how this prior allegation motivated the retaliation at the heart of the FAC.1

 Rather, Plaintiff

concludes that “[h]er request was denied because the manager gives preference to the Asian

tenants.” Id. Further, the identity of the individual defendant is altogether unclear: while the

Complaint refers to Amanda “Vernon,” Compl. at 1, the FAC references Amanda “LNU.” 

FAC at 2. In any event, the only allegation against the individual defendant is conclusory

Case 3:16-cv-03819-CRB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Nor does the FAC identify which claims are brought against which Defendants.

4

rather than factual, and therefore it is legally insufficient. Plaintiff simply states that the

defendant, an Asian herself, manifests racial animus by treating Asian tenants more favorably

than others. See id. at 2–4. But even then it is unclear if the individual defendant, described

as the “Property Manager the for [sic] Ping Yuen property,” id. at 2, was the individual who

denied Plaintiff’s apartment transfer request, id. at 3–4, failed to “correct[] the amount of

money on [Plaintiff’s] rental statement” around the time of said apartment-transfer denial, id.

at 4, or refused to pay for “damage caused to [Plaintiff’s] carpet during the most recent

annual inspection of [Plaintiff’s] unit.” Id. at 5.

B. The Claims

In addition, the FAC does not identify the legal basis for either claim, thereby making

it impossible to ascertain whether the allegations rise above speculation. Instead, the FAC

generally states the areas of law that could yield potential liability and leaves it to the Court

and Defendants to sort out the legal claims actually advanced.2

While the FAC identifies Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 or the Fair

Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–19, as the legal basis for the racial discrimination

claim, FAC at 2, it does not provide the elements of such a claim or allege any facts in

support of any of the elements.

The FHA prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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 therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin,”

42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), and allows plaintiffs to establish such a claim based on either disparate

treatment or disparate impact. See Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304–05 (9th

Cir. 1997) (citations omitted) (stating that, since courts analyze FHA discrimination claims

like employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiffs

can argue FHA discrimination as disparate treatment or disparate impact). Here, Plaintiff

alleges disparate treatment, FAC at 4, but provides no details beyond conclusory allegations

to raise her right to relief beyond a speculative level. See id. at 2–4.

Case 3:16-cv-03819-CRB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Moreover, Plaintiff asserts “[d]isparate treatment based on race and disability

discrimination.” FAC at 4. But the FAC includes no allegations relating to Plaintiff’s

disability status, and so it cannot plausibly support a claim of discrimination or retaliation on

such basis.

The retaliation claim suffers from similar deficiencies as the discrimination claim:

though the FAC points to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d–d-7,

as the legal basis for the retaliation claim, FAC at 4, it does not discuss the legally necessary

elements or how the facts support them.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff

has thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint, which should conform to Rule 8 and

address the deficiencies identified in this Order. Failure to timely amend could result in the

dismissal of Plaintiff’s case with prejudice.

The Court reiterates Magistrate Judge Laporte’s suggestion, see R&R at 2, that

Plaintiff seek free assistance with the Legal Help Center, located in the United States

Courthouse in San Francisco on 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796 (Plaintiff

may make an appointment in person or by calling 415-782-8982), and obtain a free copy of

the Pro Se Handbook online at www.cand.uscourts.gov or in the Office of the Clerk of Court,

located in the United States Courthouse in San Francisco on 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th

Floor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-03819-CRB Document 15 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 5