Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02105/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02105-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENDA F. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LILLY DUONG,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-2105 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

ON THE PLEADINGS

Defendant Lilly Duong, the only remaining defendant in this

action, moves to dismiss the third amended complaint. In response,

pro se Plaintiff Glenda F. Williams filed a paper stating that she

objects to the proceedings and requests a stay. She also filed a

motion for judgment on the pleadings. The matter was taken under

submission on the papers. Having considered all of the papers

filed by the parties, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to

dismiss and denies Plaintiff's request for a stay and her motion

for judgment on the pleadings. 

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed her original complaint and

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The defendants listed in

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 of 9
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

the caption of her complaint were "Lilly Dong [sic], Nanette Sparks

and Gregory Fortner et al." The Court granted Plaintiff's

application to proceed in forma pauperis on July 12, 2005. Three

days later, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as of right. 

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court

granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave

to file a second amended complaint. The Court instructed Plaintiff

that her complaint must contain specific factual allegations

regarding each Defendant that would enable the Court to conclude

that a claim exists. 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants again

moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court granted the motion and

dismissed without leave to amend all claims against Defendants

Sparks and Fortner. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend her

racial discrimination and due process claims against Defendant

Duong. The Court explained that "Plaintiff may be able to state a

racial discrimination claim against Duong if she combines her

allegations that Duong took Plaintiff's paperwork with tissue and

made a racially derogatory remark, with her allegations that

Plaintiff qualified for Section 8 housing, that Duong took an

action adverse to her because of her race, and that, if not for

Duong's discriminatory act, Plaintiff would have received housing."

October 4, 2007 Order at 8:1-7. And the Court instructed Plaintiff

that, under Civil Local Rule 10-1, a party filing an amended

complaint must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not

incorporate by reference any part of a prior pleading. Thus,

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 9
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

Plaintiff was warned that if she wished "allegations from her

initial complaint, FAC or SAC to be included in her claim against

Duong, then she must repeat those allegations within her TAC." Id.

at 17-19. 

Plaintiff timely filed her third amended complaint. According

to Plaintiff,

Defendant Lilly Duong acted like she did not like AfricanAmericans during the entire application process. Anytime a

person picks up documents with a tissue she is clearly stating

that she does not like African-Americans by using tissue. The

Plaintiff did not use tissue when the Defendant Lilly Duong

handed the Plaintiff any documents. That was a blatant

statement made without uttering a single world to the

Plaintiff.

Third Amended Complaint, p. 1.

Plaintiff further alleges that, because of Defendant's racial

bias, Defendant denied Plaintiff subsidized housing and, thus,

violated Plaintiff's rights under the due process clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment and under the Sixth Amendment; in addition,

Plaintiff accuses Defendant of violating 24 C.F.R. § 982.554. 

Plaintiff, however, provides no facts to support these allegations,

nor does she include many of the allegations found in her first

three complaints.

On June 13, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiff's third amended complaint and served Plaintiff with the

motion by mail. The notice of the motion stated that the matter

would be heard on July 26, 2007, in Courtroom 2 located at 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. On June 28, 2007, a

week before Plaintiff's opposition was due, Defendant filed an

amended notice of motion to dismiss, clarifying that the matter

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 9
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 4

would be heard on July 26, 2007, in Courtroom 2 located at 1301

Clay Street, Oakland, California. The amended notice was sent to

Plaintiff by mail. The next day, the Deputy Clerk filed a notice

taking Defendant's motion to dismiss under submission. The notice

reminded Plaintiff that her opposition was due July 5, 2007;

Defendant's reply was due July 12, 2007.

On July 5, 2007, the date her opposition was due, Plaintiff

filed a paper stating, "I object to these proceedings." She

attached the Deputy Clerk's notice, writing on it that she received

the notice on July 2, 2007 and did not have enough time to respond

formally. The notice, however, did not change the date by which

Plaintiff's opposition was due; she had prior notice that her

opposition was due on July 5, 2007. Plaintiff did not move for an

extension of time to file her opposition, nor did she explain why

she was unable to file timely her opposition. Rather, she just

asked the Court to stay the proceedings without providing any

explanation.

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). A plaintiff need not set out in detail the facts

upon which he or she bases her claim; however, the plaintiff must

"give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds on which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

47 (1957); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964

(2007). 

Although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, they

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 4 of 9
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

must allege facts sufficient to enable a reviewing court to

conclude that a claim exists; vague and conclusory allegations of

official participation in civil rights violations are not

sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Ivey v. Board of

Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). As

the Supreme Court recently explained, "While a complaint attacked

by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual

allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of

his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65

(inner citations and alteration omitted). Rather, the allegations

in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level." Id. at 1965. All material allegations in

the complaint, "even if doubtful in fact," are assumed to be true,

id., and are construed in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.

1986). 

When granting a motion to dismiss, a court is generally

required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request to

amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile. 

Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911

F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether amendment

would be futile, a court examines whether the complaint could be

amended to cure the defect requiring dismissal “without

contradicting any of the allegations of [the] original complaint.” 

Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 5 of 9
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

6

Leave to amend should be liberally granted, but an amended

complaint cannot allege facts inconsistent with the challenged

pleading. Id. at 296-97. 

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant's motion to dismiss

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's third amended complaint,

like her prior complaints, again fails to satisfy the minimal

requirements of Rule 8. Noting that this is Plaintiff's fourth 

attempt to state a colorable claim, Defendant contends that

Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

To support this contention, Defendant relies, in part, on alleged

facts outside the complaint. Defendant states that Plaintiff's

Section 8 housing application was not denied by Defendant or anyone

else. The Court, however, need not look to purported facts outside

the third amended complaint to determine that Plaintiff has not

stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

As noted above, the Court gave Plaintiff guidance on how to

amend her second and third amended complaints to state a cause of

action against Defendant. The Court also warned Plaintiff that

allegations in prior complaints could not be considered unless they

were included in the third amended complaint. Plaintiff's third

amended complaint, however, includes even fewer facts than her

prior three complaints. It no longer, for example, alleges that

Plaintiff submitted all of the necessary documents for, and

qualified for, an emergency Section 8 housing voucher. Nor does it

allege, like a prior complaint, that Plaintiff made a racially

derogatory remark. It does not describe how Defendant allegedly

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 6 of 9
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

Further, it is not clear whether a private cause of action

exists under that regulation.

7

violated Plaintiff's due process rights or how Defendant allegedly

violated the Sixth Amendment and 24 C.F.R. § 982.554. 

Plaintiff's third amended complaint again fails to allege

facts from which could be drawn the inference of individualized

causation necessary to state a claim based on racial discrimination

or a due process violation. And Plaintiff was granted leave to

amend her racial discrimination and due process claims, not to add

a cause of action under 24 C.F.R. § 982.554.1 Therefore, the Court

dismisses Plaintiff's complaint because it fails to state any claim

upon which relief can be granted. Because Plaintiff was previously

granted leave to amend her claims against Defendant with guidance

as to how to amend her claims, this dismissal is without leave to

amend.

II. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Lilly Duong, Nanette Sparks,

Gregory Fortner and the San Francisco Housing Authority are in

default because they have not filed answers to her complaint. 

Plaintiff's argument is without merit. The San Francisco

Housing Authority, Nanette Sparks and Gregory Fortner are no longer

parties to this case. See January 26, 2006 Order (dismissing

claims against the San Francisco Housing Authority); October 4,

2006 Order (dismissing claims against Nanette Sparks and Gregory

Fortner). Defendant Duong, the only remaining Defendant in this

case, filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court has granted. 

Until the Court denied Defendant Duong's motion to dismiss, her

answer was not due. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A); William W

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

Schwarzer et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 9:281

(2007). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 68). This action,

however, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing a paid

complaint. Plaintiff's request for a stay (Docket No. 71) is

DENIED. To be granted a stay, Plaintiff must explain why a stay is

warranted; she does not. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the

pleading (Docket No. 74) is DENIED.

The Clerk shall enter judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's claims

against Defendant Duong. Each party shall bear its own costs. The

Clerk shall close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8/1/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 8 of 9
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

WILLIAMS et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONG et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-02105 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 1, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter

listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an

inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Randall Jayman Lee

Christi M. Gotvald

Daniel G. Cortright

Walsworth, Franklin, Bevin & McCall, LLP

601 Montgomery St.

9th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-2612

Glenda F. Williams

P.O. Box 43415

Oakland, CA 94624

Dated: August 1, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-02105-CW Document 76 Filed 08/01/07 Page 9 of 9