Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03435/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03435-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

In the Complaint, pro se Plaintiffs include Larry Richards, Honorio Rivera Junior, & Kevin Hansen referred to as

“The Ad Hoc Tenants Committee of the Rose Hotel.” Defendants include: the Housing Authority of the City and County

of San Francisco (“SFHA”), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), Mercy Housing

California, Mercy Housing California “X”-doing business as the Rose Hotel, The Rose Hotel, Greg Fortner-Director-SFHA,

Tony Ucciferri-Director-Section 8 Division-SFHA, and Does 1-10 named but unknown persons. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY RICHARDS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SF HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Defendant(S). /

No. C 07-3435 MJJ

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND

DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

The Court has received Plaintiffs’ Complaint1

 and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

both filed in this Court on June 29, 2007. As explained below, because there is no legal basis for

Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint sua sponte and DENIES

Plaintiffs Application.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or costs or security therefor, by a

person who submits an affidavit that the person is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” 

In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte if

the court determines that the party applying for in forma pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). For the purposes of

Case 3:07-cv-03435-MJJ Document 4 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff utilizes “SRO” to refer to Single Room Occupancy Dwellings. 

3

Americans With Disabilities Act.

2

28U.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 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are often made sua sponte prior

to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of

answering such complaints. Id. at 324. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds 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. See

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (overruled by statute with regard to pro se

prisoner complaints). 

Here, Plaintiffs are disabled tenants of the Rose Hotel who receive Section 8 housing

assistance. (Complaint (“Compl.”) p. 4.) As best the Court can discern, Plaintiffs’ complaint

generally alleges six claims contending that Defendants intentionally discriminate against Plaintiffs

and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs claims are as follows: (1) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants

intentionally discriminate against Plaintiffs through a “two tier housing” policy in which Defendants

refuse to issue transferrable Section 8 vouchers to residents of “SRO” project based Section 8

housing.2

 (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiffs further aver that transferable vouchers are an absolute right to

others similarly situated throughout the country, therefore, Defendants’ policy amounts to

unconstitutional discrimination against them. (Id. at 6.) (2) Plaintiffs contend that “SRO Housing” is

unconstitutional because not all individuals in the program are provided rooms with separate

bathrooms and kitchens. (Id. at 7-9.) (3) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ policy of automatic

renewal of “SRO” contracts with the Rose Hotel is unconstitutional because it perpetuates disparate

treatment by trapping Plaintiffs in substandard housing. (Id. at 9-10.) (4) Plaintiffs contend that

Defendants’ automatic contract renewal policy is unconstitutional because it is done without a public

hearing. (Id. at 10.) (5) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ refusal to produce a written response to

ADA3 modification requests is “discriminatory on the basis of handicap.” (Id. at 10-11.) (6)

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ failure to provide notice of substandard housing to prospective

Case 3:07-cv-03435-MJJ Document 4 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

tenants of the Rose hotel is unconstitutional. (Id. at 11-12) 

Because Plaintiffs’ Complaint presents only conclusory statements alleging unconstitutional

discriminatory conduct, the Complaint presents no cognizable legal theory or factual basis for relief.

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint is frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and

DISMISSES the Complaint sua sponte. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Because the

Court orders dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the entry of this order to file an Amended Complaint to

properly allege their constitutional claims, if any, against the Defendants. Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint should provide a cognizable legal theory upon which each claim is based, and a factual

basis for alleging how each Defendant’s conduct satisfies necessary elements of each claim. 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint should also address the special pleading requirements necessary to

properly allege claims against government defendants, if any. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July ___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03435-MJJ Document 4 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 3