Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01153/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01153-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES KARIM MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH RICHMOND SENIOR HOUSING, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01153-WHO 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 9

On April 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed with leave to amend because of

plaintiff’s failure to state a “class of one” equal protection claim based on allegations that his rent 

was increased disproportionately in comparison to other renters without proper notice. Dkt. No. 9. 

Objections to Judge Laporte’s recommendation were due by May 9, 2016. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72(b); Civ. Local Rule 72-3. As of today’s date, no objections have been filed.

Having reviewed the matter, the Court ADOPTS Judge Laporte’s Report and 

Recommendation in whole. For the reasons expressed therein, this case is DISMISSED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order. If 

plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should describe the facts that lead him to believe that 

he has been intentionally treated differently than others and why there is no rational justification 

for this difference in treatment. Compare Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) 

(A “class of one” equal protection claim arises when a plaintiff is “intentionally treated differently 

from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment”), 

with Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 660 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The class-of-one doctrine does not 

apply to forms of state action that by their nature involve discretionary decisionmaking based on a 

vast array of subjective, individualized assessments”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Case 3:16-cv-01153-WHO Document 13 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center by calling 415-782-8982 

or by signing the appointment book outside the Legal Help Center’s office on the 15th floor of the 

federal building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. More information about 

the Legal Help Center is available online at cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. Plaintiff may also 

wish to obtain a copy of this district’s handbook for parties representing themselves in federal 

court, available at cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01153-WHO Document 13 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 2