Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01358/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01358-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MCINERNEY,

Plaintiff,

v

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY

et al,

Defendant.

 /

No C-03-1358 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a complaint against a long list of

defendants alleging a conspiracy to violate a variety of statutes

in the course of evicting him from housing under the authority of

defendant San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA). Compl (Doc #1). 

SFHA moves pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc

#23. The gravamen of the motion is this:

[The complaint] appears grounded in a

conspiracy to violate civil rights, and

deprivation of civil rights. But the complaint

is vague and conclusory, and fails to identify

[SFHA’s] role in the conspiracy or deprivation. 

Indeed, McInerney cites numerous statutes and

amendments, * * * [y]et he fails to describe

Case 3:03-cv-01358-VRW Document 27 Filed 04/27/05 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

how [SFHA] conspired to violate the statutes

and amendments, or how it deprived him of any

civil rights provided under each.

Id at 4-5. The court disagrees that the complaint fails to allege

how SFHA conspired; after all, SFHA was allegedly in charge of

plaintiff’s housing at the time he was evicted. But the complaint

does indeed lack allegations establishing how the alleged

conspiracy violated any of the numerous statutory and

constitutional provisions cited by plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s opposition does little to respond

specifically to this contention. He argues that the allegations of

the complaint “disclose a pattern of wilful misconduct with the

intent to vex and annoy and oppress plaintiff implying collusion

with the objectives of defendant’s unlawful eviction of plaintiff.” 

Pl Opp (Doc #25) at 2-3. While the allegations of the complaint

may establish that SFHA “vex[ed] and annoy[ed] and oppress[ed]”

plaintiff, these are not violations of the law. To the extent

plaintiff seeks to re-litigate the merits of his eviction, the

allegations of the complaint itself signal that such a challenge

would be barred by res judicata. To the extent plaintiff

challenges judicial acts in the eviction proceeding, such a

challenge would be barred by judicial immunity or the RookerFeldman doctrine. Beyond this, there is nothing in the complaint

to establish violations of the statutory and constitutional

provisions that plaintiff cites.

Accordingly, SFHA’s motion to dismiss (Doc #25) is

GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint not later than

May 31, 2005.

One other matter remains: In its order dated February

Case 3:03-cv-01358-VRW Document 27 Filed 04/27/05 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

23, 2005 (Doc #21) extending the time under FRCP 4(m) for plaintiff

to serve his complaint, the court admonished plaintiff that a

failure to serve any defendant by April 15, 2005, would result in

dismissal without prejudice of the complaint as to that defendant. 

It appears that only SFHA and the City and County of San Francisco

have been served. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice as to all other defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-01358-VRW Document 27 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 of 3