Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02360/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02360-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

KIMBERLY D. DAWSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRICK CHAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02360-RS 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

In her first amended complaint (“FAC”), pro se plaintiff and Section 8 housing assistance 

recipient Kimberly D. Dawson alleges that defendants wrongfully initiated eviction proceedings 

against her and her family. Dawson was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis but, pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)(ii), her initial complaint was dismissed for failure to state any federal 

claim. The FAC must be dismissed for the same reason. 

A plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the federal courts have jurisdiction over 

her claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Dawson

alleges that this action arises under 24 C.F.R. § 880.603, a regulation promulgated by the United 

States Department of Housing and Urban Development. This court’s research, however, has not 

revealed any federal cause of action against a landlord for failure to comply with the terms of that 

regulation. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 939 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ederal rights 

are created by Congress through statutes, not by agencies through regulations.”); see also Elliott v. 

Plaza Properties, Inc., 08-cv-1037, 2010 WL 2541020, at *5 (S.D. Ohio, June 18, 2010) (“Despite 

the fact that federal law specifies that certain terms be included in leases executed between private 

landlords who participate in the Section 8 housing program and their tenants,” generally, “when a 

Section 8 landlord evicts a tenant, it is not acting as a federal actor, and there is no jurisdiction in 

Case 3:15-cv-02360-RS Document 11 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 15-cv-02360-RS

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

the federal courts to review the propriety of the landlord’s acts.”). Dawson is entitled to assert any 

defenses she may have under federal law in the unlawful detainer case proceeding against her in 

state court. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Westhab, Inc., 833 F.Supp.425, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). If those 

proceedings have concluded and she is dissatisfied with the result, she is also free to appeal that 

outcome in the California courts. This court, however, does not have the authority to wade into

parallel state court proceedings. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

462, 486 (1983) (federal district courts lack authority to consider “challenges to state court 

decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings”). 

Dawson’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Dawson elects to file a second 

amended complaint, she must do so no later than September 25, 2015. If she does not file an 

amended complaint on or before that date, this action will be dismissed without further notice and 

the file closed. If she has not already done so, Dawson should consider contacting the Northern 

District’s pro se help desk at (415) 782-8982. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02360-RS Document 11 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2