NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

TREASA FENNIE, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-753 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

D’ANNE BREVETTI, :

:

Defendant. :

 :

THE COURT, in an Opinion and an Order and Judgment dated May

10, 2011 (“May 2011 Opinion” and “May 2011 Order”), dismissed the

Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 insofar as it may be

construed to assert claims under (1) federal jurisdiction, with

prejudice, and (2) state law, without prejudice to recommence the

state law claims in state court. (Dkt. entry no. 3, 5-10-11

Order & J.; dkt. entry no. 2, 5-10-11 Op.) The Court assumes

that the plaintiff is familiar with the contents of the May 2011

Opinion and the May 2011 Order, and will not repeat their

contents here.

THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, now files a “Petition To Amend

Complaint [and] For New Trial”. (Dkt. entry no. 4.) The

plaintiff is attempting to amend her claims by adding several new

defendants, deleting most of her previous claims, and asserting

what appears to be almost completely new claims (“Apparent

Claims”). The motion will be denied.

Case 3:11-cv-00753-MLC-TJB Document 5 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 29
THE PLAINTIFF fails to address the fact that the Complaint

has been dismissed and that the action has been designated as

being closed. The plaintiff neither requests that the action be

reopened, nor cites any basis to reopen the action under any case

law, federal statute, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or Local

Civil Rule.

THE PLAINTIFF is attempting to raise entirely new claims

against several new defendants under the same civil action

number. In the Complaint, the plaintiff sought relief under 42

U.S.C. § 3535 and 24 C.F.R. § 245.15(a), and thus through 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff now relies on 42 U.S.C. § 3613 (see

dkt. entry no. 4, at 1), which permits an aggrieved person to

commence a civil action with respect to a discriminatory housing

practice within two years of an occurrence. The plaintiff will

not be permitted to alter the entire character of the action

under the same civil action number.

CLAIMS brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613 must allege a

discriminatory housing practice as defined by 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602

and 3604. See Tenafly Eruv Ass’n v. Bor. of Tenafly, 309 F.3d

144, 157 n.13 (3d Cir. 2002). The Apparent Claims, in any event,

fail to state a cause of action, as they do not contain any

details of discriminatory conduct by the defendants that has been

directed at the plaintiff. See Mitchell v. Walters, No. 10-1061,

2010 WL 3614210, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2010) (dismissing claims,

2

Case 3:11-cv-00753-MLC-TJB Document 5 Filed 06/02/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 30
as they were “bereft of any facts which directly charge or even

permit the reasonable inference that Defendants’ challenged

actions were motivated by” discriminatory intent, and were based

only on “suspicion, speculation and conclusory assertions”).

THE PLAINTIFF alleges that she “was denied a unit after

submitting an application”, but adds “the decision was reversed

after I requested a hearing”, and thus she has already received

relief. (See dkt. entry no. 4-1, at 1.) Also, any cause of

action as to that allegation arose in November 2008, more than two

years ago. (See dkt. entry no. 4-3, at 2 (11-17-08 Determination

noting application approval).) The allegation that the defendants

are “exposing tenants to identity theft” by posting notices on

doors provides no basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3613. (See

dkt. entry no. 4-1, at 1.) The allegation that the defendants

“called the local police and slandered me” is a state law claim. 

(Id.) The allegation concerning a “forged, incomplete email

document” concerning the calculation of the plaintiff’s income

fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3613, and in any event

is patently without merit. (Id.) The remaining allegations

concerning “harassment” — the plaintiff’s use of a community room

has been restricted as a favor to longer-tenured tenants; a

security guard and “the maintenance man’s son” stole jewelry from

her apartment, but she admittedly cannot provide proof of same;

other tenants receive rental reminders under their doors, whereas

3

Case 3:11-cv-00753-MLC-TJB Document 5 Filed 06/02/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 31
she does not (id. at 1-2) — may give rise to causes of action

under state law, but not under 42 U.S.C. § 3613.

THE COURT noted in the May 2011 Opinion that there was a

related landlord-tenant action (“Landlord-Tenant Action”) pending

in New Jersey state court against the plaintiff. (See May 2011

Op. at 2, 6-7.) See New Brunswick UAW v. Fennie, No. LT-3067-11. 

The plaintiff has failed to address the Court’s concerns as to

the ramifications of the Landlord-Tenant Action on this federal

action in the “Petition To Amend Complaint [and] For New Trial”.

For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court will deny

the “Petition To Amend Complaint [and] For New Trial”. The Court

will issue an appropriate order.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 2, 2011

4

Case 3:11-cv-00753-MLC-TJB Document 5 Filed 06/02/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 32