Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01361/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01361-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Collegiate Housing Services, Inc.
Defendant
John Parlante
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PARLANTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGIATE HOUSING SERVICES 

INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1361 MCE DAD PS

ORDER

Plaintiff John Parlante is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has 

submitted an in forma pauperis application that make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will therefore be granted.

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the 

inquiry required by the statutes. The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if 

the allegation of poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or 

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against 

an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it 

lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin 

v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 

Case 2:15-cv-01361-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 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

2

complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 

factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 

true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 

Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 

(9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 

conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 

Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s 

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).

Here, the amended complaint filed by plaintiff on July 17, 2015, alleges that defendant 

Collegiate Housing Services, Inc., (“CHS”), “operates for profit The Hub which purports to be 

student housing for full time students.” (Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 3) at 1.) CHS “required plaintiff 

to go through an extensive income, background, and credit check but for African Americans they 

give them immediate housing without income verification or academic standing as a student.” 

(Id.) Specifically, in his amended complaint plaintiff alleges that he applied for housing at The 

Hub on August 27, 2014. (Id. at 3.) According to plaintiff, although units were available from 

August through the middle of November, The Hub refused to rent a unit to him until November 

17, 2014, at which time plaintiff moved into a unit. (Id.) That unit, however, had inadequate 

lighting, oxidized paint, and an odor coming from the rug. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on two 

occasions, the electricity to plaintiff’s unit was shut off causing plaintiff’s food to rot. (Id. at 4.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01361-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff also alleges that in January of 2015, “William Wright III was placed” into 

plaintiff’s unit, despite being, “ineligible to receive financial aid,” having “no money” and being 

“an alcoholic who does not behave according to social norms.” (Id. at 5.) According to plaintiff, 

Wright “damaged plaintiff’s property and borrowed money without permission.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

complained to CHS employee Makisha Smith, who is “of the same race” as Wright, and Smith 

moved Wright out of the unit. (Id. at 5-6.) However, the following day Smith “retaliated by 

trying to get . . . security to remove plaintiff from the unit, despite a surplus of rent being paid.” 

(Id. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant eventually filed an unlawful detainer action against 

plaintiff, resulting in plaintiff being “unable to graduate from his degree program.” (Id. at 7.) 

The complaint’s first cause of action, and the sole claim that would provide this court with 

original jurisdiction over the action, is a claim that CHS violated the Federal Fair Housing 

Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. ' 3604(b), by “[d]iscriminating or otherwise making unavailable 

dwellings because of race . . . and holding [plaintiff] to a higher standard than other races.” (Id. at 

8.) Title 42 U.S.C. ' 3604(b) provides that it is unlawful 

To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or 

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of 

services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, 

religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

In his amended complaint, however, plaintiff fails to identify either his own race or the 

race of anyone else identified in his amended complaint. Moreover, although in the amended 

complaint plaintiff alleges in a conclusory manner that African Americans were given immediate 

housing without income verification or academic standing while plaintiff was required to go 

through an extensive background check, the amended complaint fails to provide any factual 

allegations to support that conclusory assertion. Thus, it is unclear from reading the allegations 

found in the amended complaint precisely how defendant CHS allegedly discriminated against 

plaintiff because of his race.1 See generally Housing Rights Center v. Sterling, 404 F.Supp.2d 

1179, 1192 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“To state a claim under § 3604(b), a plaintiff must show that he or 

 

1

 Moreover, the amended complaint frequently refers to “Defendants” despite only naming one 

defendant, CHS, in the amended complaint. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 8.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01361-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 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

4

she was subjected to different terms, conditions, or privileges because of a protected status.”); 

Inland Mediation Bd. v. City of Pomona, 158 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“In many 

instances, to establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he 

or she is a member of a protected class who applied for and was qualified to rent housing and who 

was rejected; Plaintiff must also show that the housing opportunity remained available.”).

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 

state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 

and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 

does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

557. A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 

defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a 

cognizable claim over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction. The undersigned has 

carefully considered whether plaintiff may further amend the complaint to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad 

faith, prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 

F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). See also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. 

Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely 

given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). However, when evaluating the 

failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff may be dismissed “only where ‘it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). See also Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 

(9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-01361-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 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

5

absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) 

(quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Here, the court cannot yet say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be 

futile. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted 

leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that if he elects to file 

a second amended complaint “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations 

contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements 

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 

U.S. at 678. “While legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be 

supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims 

“across the line from conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete 

in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The second amended complaint will supersede the 

amended complaint just as the amended complaint superseded the original complaint. See Loux 

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in any second amended complaint plaintiff may 

elect to file, just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed 

in the caption and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of 

each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any second amended complaint which plaintiff may 

elect to file must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and 

events which underlie plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2015, application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) 

is granted.

2. The amended complaint filed July 17, 2015 (Dkt. No. 3) is dismissed with leave 

to amend.

3. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, a second amended 

complaint shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal 

Case 2:15-cv-01361-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/02/15 Page 5 of 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

6

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended complaint must 

bear the case number assigned to this action and must be titled “Second Amended Complaint.”2

4. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: October 1, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\parlante1361.dism.lta.ord.docx

 

2

 Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, plaintiff may file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Case 2:15-cv-01361-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/02/15 Page 6 of 6