Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06409/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06409-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

JOSEPH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDALL SHAW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06409-LB

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT 

JEFFREY SCARCELLO

Re: ECF No. 116, 117

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Joseph Thomas brings this suit against defendants Randall Shaw, Mwangi Mukami, 

Jeffrey Scarcello, and Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc.1 Mr. Thomas brings only one claim against 

Mr. Scarcello: a putative claim for violation of “the Civil Rights Act of 1968[,] 18 USC 

§5245(b)(2), the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act[,] 28 USC §994 note sec. 

280003.”2 Mr. Thomas alleges that Mr. Scarcello used “fighting words” and various epithets 

 

1

[Second] Amend. Compl. (“SAC”) – ECF No. 46. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case 

File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. Mr. 

Thomas also sued defendants Balwantsinh D. Thakor, Kiransinh Thakor, and Shree Jalaram LLC, but 

those defendants have been dismissed from the case. Order – ECF No. 82.

2 SAC – ECF No. 46 at 7.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 118 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 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 California

against him and got into an altercation with him.3(Mr. Scarcello, for his part, claims that Mr. 

Thomas was the one who assaulted him and that Mr. Thomas broke his nose.4)

There is no such statute as 18 U.S.C. § 5245, and 28 U.S.C. § 994 and Section 280003 do not 

create a private right of action. Because of this, on October 31, 2019, the court issued an order for 

Mr. Thomas to show cause why his claims against Mr. Scarcello should not be dismissed.5 On 

November 5, 2019, Mr. Thomas filed a response to the court’s order to show cause.6 Having 

reviewed the response, the court finds that Mr. Thomas has not shown cause. The court dismisses 

Mr. Thomas’s claims against Mr. Scarcello. The court grants Mr. Thomas leave to file an amended 

complaint to replead against Mr. Scarcello.

STATEMENT7

Mr. Thomas moved into the National Hotel Budget Inn (“Hotel”) in San Francisco, California, 

in November 2012.8 The Hotel “was overrun with bedbugs, roaches, mice, and rats. Every toilet 

and shower leaked or was inoperable, the heat did not work properly, and windows were 

missing.”9

In December 2016, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic (“THC”) took over the management of the 

Hotel and converted it into “supportive housing.”10 Mr. Thomas alleges that the THC clients 

brought “needles, sexual liaisons, bedbugs, roaches, noise, dogs, and visitors” to the Hotel and 

 

3

Id. at 6 (¶ 13).

4 Scarcello Answer – ECF No. 112 at 5.

5 Order to Show Cause – ECF No. 116. The court issued this order to show cause in part because Mr. 

Scarcello is pro se and might not understand how to file a motion to dismiss on his own and because a 

review of Mr. Thomas’s complaint left the court with the view that he had not pleaded a cognizable 

claim against Mr. Scarcello.

6 Pl. Resp. – ECF No. 117.

7 Unless otherwise stated, the facts in the Statement are allegations from the SAC and are presumed to 

be true for the purposes of this order.

8 SAC – ECF No. 46 at 4 (¶ 6).

9

Id.

10 Id. (¶ 8).

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 118 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 3

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 California

turned it into a “safe-injection site.”11 Mr. Thomas asked THC “about housing in a building that 

wasn’t ‘supportive housing;’ but THC never responded.”12 Mr. Thomas alleges that THC “has a 

history of churning tenants in order to get higher rents” and that his “quiet enjoyment of the 

premises” lasted one month before the THC clients moved in.13

On December 11, 2017, Mr. Thomas was awoken by “fighting words” at his door.14 Mr. 

Thomas alleges that Jeffrey Scarcello, another resident of the Hotel, was uttering racial and 

homophobic slurs at him through his door.15 According to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Scarcello “incited the 

other tenants in the building by telling them the reason the heat wasn’t working properly is 

because ‘management was retaliating against the building’ on account of [Mr. Thomas’s] advisory 

to the tenants of their rights to safe and habitable living conditions.”

16 Mr. Thomas alleges that:

When I left my room to see what was going on, most of the mob disappeared back 

into their rooms. Only Scarcello continued the tirade, completely flushed and 

irrational. Scarcello repeatedly stood close enough so that spittle was sprayed into 

my face. This went on for what seemed forever. Half-asleep, and with my 

adrenaline surging, all I remember is chasing him away from my room.17

ANALYSIS

A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims on its own initiative where the plaintiff does not state 

a valid, legally cognizable claim. Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017). Before 

doing so, “the court must give notice of its intention to dismiss and afford plaintiff[] an 

opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting cases). The court gave Mr. Thomas notice of its intention to 

 

11 Id.

12 Id. at 9 (¶ 18).

13 Id. at 4–5 (¶¶ 9–10).

14 Id. at 6 (¶ 13).

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 118 Filed 11/06/19 Page 3 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dismiss his claims against Mr. Scarcello and gave him an opportunity to submit a written 

memorandum in opposition.18

Mr. Thomas brings a claim against Mr. Scarcello for violations of “18 U.S.C. § 5245” and 28 

U.S.C. § 994 and Section 280003. Mr. Thomas’s claims against Mr. Scarcello are not cognizable

and must be dismissed.

First, there is no such statute as 18 U.S.C. § 5245.

Second, 28 U.S.C. § 994 simply empowers the U.S. Sentencing Commission to establish 

sentencing guidelines, and Section 280003 is a direction to the Sentencing Commission regarding 

sentencing enhancements for hate crimes. Neither 28 U.S.C. § 994 nor Section 280003 creates a 

private right of action for a plaintiff like Mr. Thomas to bring a civil claim. Stevens v. Skolnik, No. 

3:09-cv-00227-RCJ (RAM), 2010 WL 3081254, at *3 (D. Nev. May 19, 2010) (report and 

recommendation) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)), adopted, 2010 WL 

3119188 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2010).

To the extent Mr. Thomas is alleging that Mr. Scarcello violated criminal laws more generally, 

“[a] private citizen may not sue under the federal criminal laws absent some language in the 

statute that suggests a private right of action.” Bey v. City of Oakland, No. 14-cv-01626-JSC, 2014 

WL 4220319, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2014) (citing Ou-Young v. Vasquez, No. 12-CV-02789-

LHK, 2012 WL 5471164, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012)).

Mr. Thomas says in his response to the court’s order to show cause that he had intended to sue 

Mr. Scarcello under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of his civil rights. Mr. Thomas has not 

pleaded facts that can support a Section 1983 claim against Mr. Scarcello. Section 1983 allows 

individuals to sue government officials who violate their civil rights while acting “under color of 

any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “The ‘under 

color of state law’ requirement is an essential element of a § 1983 case, and it is the plaintiff’s 

burden to establish this element.” Gatpandan v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB, No. 17-cv04001-LB, 2017 WL 5751208, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017) (some internal quotation marks 

 

18 Order to Show Cause – ECF No. 116; see also Pl. Resp. – ECF No. 117.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 118 Filed 11/06/19 Page 4 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 5

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 California

omitted) (quoting Duenas v. Freitas, No. C 13-0836 SBA, 2013 WL 3298249, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

June 28, 2013)). “‘Purely private conduct, no matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983.’”

Id. (quoting Duenas, 2013 WL 3298249, at *5). Mr. Thomas does not cognizably plead that Mr. 

Scarcello is a state actor (as opposed to a private individual), and he therefore cannot bring a 

Section 1983 claim against Mr. Scarcello.

Mr. Thomas argues that “Defendant Scarcello violated Plaintiff Thomas’[s] civil rights by 

colluding, conspiring, and cooperating with an entity that receives Federal funds, the Tenderloin 

Housing Clinic.”19 This does not allow him to plead a Section 1983 claim against Mr. Scarcello. 

First, Mr. Thomas’s assertions that Mr. Scarcello colluded, conspired, or cooperated with THC are 

conclusory. Second, and more importantly, Mr. Thomas does not cognizably plead that THC is a 

state actor either. That THC might have received federal funds, without more, does not make it a 

state actor. Cf. Atterbury v. Sanchez, No. CV 11-4932 SI, 2012 WL 3638571, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 22, 2012) (“[N]umerous courts in this District have found that the receipt of HUD or other 

federal funds is insufficient to establish that landlords acted under color of state law in making 

housing decisions.”) (collecting cases). THC’s alleged involvement thus does not make Mr. 

Scarcello a state actor and does not give Mr. Thomas an avenue to pleading a Section 1983 claim 

against him.

CONCLUSION

The court dismisses Mr. Thomas’s claims against Mr. Scarcello.

The court gives Mr. Thomas leave to replead against Mr. Scarcello. Mr. Thomas may file an 

amended complaint within fourteen days of the date of this order repleading claims against Mr. 

Scarcello. (The court does not grant Mr. Thomas leave at this juncture to amend or add to his 

claims against any defendants other than Mr. Scarcello or to add any new defendants.) If Mr. 

Thomas does not timely file an amended complaint with valid, legally cognizable claims against 

 

19 Pl. Resp. – ECF No. 117 at 2.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 118 Filed 11/06/19 Page 5 of 6
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 6

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 California

Mr. Scarcello, the court will dismiss Mr. Thomas’s claims against Mr. Scarcello with prejudice 

and dismiss Mr. Scarcello from the case.20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

20 Mr. Thomas should caption any new complaint he files the “Third Amended Complaint.” The court 

notes for Mr. Thomas’s benefit that an amended complaint wholly supersedes, as opposed to merely 

supplementing, an earlier complaint, so if he files a Third Amended Complaint, he cannot rely on his 

earlier complaints and must reinclude all claims and factual allegations that he wishes to pursue in this 

case (including claims and factual allegations against the other defendants) in his Third Amended 

Complaint. The court also notes for Mr. Thomas’s benefit that his filing a Third Amended Complaint 

will reset the deadline for the other defendants to respond to his complaint (including by filing a 

motion to dismiss). In light of this, Mr. Thomas may wish to consider whether he wants to file a new 

complaint or would rather continue with his current operative SAC against the defendants other than 

Mr. Scarcello.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 118 Filed 11/06/19 Page 6 of 6