(PS) Sharma v. Home Buyers Realty and HBR Rentals ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANAVI SHARMA, No. 2:20-cv-0940 TLN DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HOME BUYERS REALTY AND HBR RENTALS, et al., 15 16 Defendants, 17 18 Plaintiff Janavi Sharma is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 19 undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 20 before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complains about being evicted. 22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma 23 pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 24 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s complaint is deficient. Accordingly, for the reasons stated 25 below, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. 26 I. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 27 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 1 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny 2 leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 3 complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 4 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th 5 Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Department of Child Support Services, 584 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th 6 Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGee’s request to proceed 7 IFP because it appears from the face of the amended complaint that McGee’s action is frivolous 8 or without merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the 9 District Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 10 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, 11 the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 12 Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 13 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 14 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 15 defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 16 arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 17 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 18 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 19 factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 20 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 21 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 22 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 23 true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 24 favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 25 Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 26 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 27 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 28 //// 1 conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 2 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 3 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows: 4 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 5 jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for 6 judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 8 II. Plaintiff’s Complaint 9 Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain a short and plain statement of a claim showing 10 that plaintiff is entitled to relief. In this regard, the complaint simply alleges in vague and 11 conclusory terms that plaintiff “was wrongfully evicted” and “strongly believe[s]” it was “carried 12 out due to retaliation by [plaintiff’s] ex husband[.]” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 14.) The complaint 13 also alleges that defendant HBR Rentals failed to return plaintiff’s calls, and that plaintiff’s 14 “privacy” was violated when “construction crew barged in without permission[.]” (Id.) The 15 complaint fails to identify a claim asserted against a named defendant and fails to allege facts in 16 support of that claim. 17 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 18 complaint must give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and must allege facts that 19 state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Jones v. 20 Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). “A pleading that offers ‘labels 21 and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of cause of action will not do.’ Nor 22 does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual 23 enhancements.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 24 557). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the 25 defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claims. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 26 The complaint does assert that the court has federal question jurisdiction over this action 27 pursuant to two statutes pertaining to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, (“FHA”), et. seq. 28 (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4.) The FHA prohibits discrimination against “any person in the terms, 1 conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities 2 in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin,” 3 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), or “because of a handicap,” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). “To state a claim under 4 § 3604, a plaintiff must show that he or she was subjected to different ‘terms, conditions, or 5 privileges because of a protected status.’” Cabrera v. Alvarez, 977 F.Supp.2d 969, 975 (N.D. Cal. 6 2013) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b)). “To make out a claim of discrimination based on failure to 7 reasonably accommodate, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he suffers from a handicap as 8 defined by the FHAA; (2) defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the plaintiff’s 9 handicap; (3) accommodation of the handicap ‘may be necessary’ to afford plaintiff an equal 10 opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) defendants refused to make such 11 accommodation.” Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 III. Leave to Amend 13 For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The undersigned 14 has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim upon which 15 relief can be granted. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, 16 prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 17 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 18 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the 19 court does not have to allow futile amendments). 20 However, when evaluating the failure to state a claim, the complaint of a pro se plaintiff 21 may be dismissed “only where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts 22 in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 23 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972)); see also Weilburg v. 24 Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to 25 amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 26 cured by amendment.”) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 27 1988)). 28 //// 1 Here, given the complaint’s vague and conclusory allegations the undersigned cannot yet 2 say that it appears beyond doubt that leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiff’s complaint will 3 therefore be dismissed, and plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff 4 is cautioned, however, that if plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint “the tenet that a court 5 must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal 6 conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 7 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. “While legal conclusions can 8 provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679. 9 Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from conceivable to 10 plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 11 Plaintiff is also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an 12 amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete 13 in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original 14 complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in an amended complaint, 15 just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption 16 and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each 17 defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file 18 must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and events 19 which underlie plaintiff’s claims. 20 CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The complaint filed May 7, 2020 (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to 23 amend.1 24 2. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, an amended complaint shall be 25 filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil 26 //// 27 1 Plaintiff need not file another application to proceed in forma pauperis at this time unless 28 plaintiff’s financial condition has improved since the last such application was submitted. 1 Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.2 The amended complaint must bear the case number 2 assigned to this action and must be titled “Amended Complaint.” 3 3. Failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation 4 that this action be dismissed. 5 DATED: October 8, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action plaintiff may file a notice of 28 voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.