Asmelashe v. Guess ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALMAZ ASMELASHE, Case No. 21-cv-03018-JSC 8 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER PURSUANT TO 9 v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 10 LEE GUESS, Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendant. 11 12 13 This matter arises from Almaz Asmelashe’s encounters with her landlord, Lee Guess. Ms. 14 Asmelashe, proceeding in forma pauperis and without representation of counsel, filed the instant 15 complaint against Mr. Guess. (See Dkt. No. 1.) The Court previously granted Ms. Asmelashe’s 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 8.) The Court must now review the 17 complaint’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because Ms. Asmelashe’s complaint does not 18 establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) the 19 Court gives Ms. Asmelashe the opportunity to amend the complaint. 20 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 21 Ms. Asmelashe has resided at the apartment she rents from Mr. Lee for 3 years. (Dkt. No. 22 1 at 1.) On September 2, 2019 at 10:57 p.m., Mr. Lee visited Ms. Asmelashe at her apartment 23 demanding owed rent. (Id. at 3.) According to the complaint, due to a court stipulation Ms. 24 Asmelashe’s rent was not due until October 1, 2020. (Id.) Mr. Lee is evicting Ms. Asmelashe 25 because she will not pay her rent, as requested by him, in cash; the complaint alleges that the 26 parties’ rental agreement does not contemplate that she must pay rent in cash, and that because 27 Ms. Asmelashe has failed to do so Mr. Lee has filed an unlawful detainer action against her. (Id.) 1 provide a receipt for the rent that Ms. Asmelashe has paid. (Id.) The complaint alleges that Mr. 2 Lee is attempting to take advantage of Ms. Asmelashe in part because she was not born in the 3 United States. (Id. at 4.) 4 Mr. Lee “banged on [Ms. Asmelashe’s] door loudly and demanding rent” on the following 5 dates: June 3, 2019 at 12:47 a.m.; July 4, 2019 at 11:13 p.m.; August 3, 2019 at 12:07 a.m.; 6 September 2, 2019 at 10:37 p.m.; October 6, 2019 at 11:28 p.m.; and November 3, 2019 at 10:07 7 p.m. (Id at 4-5.) Mr. Lee has made statements to Ms. Asmelashe such as “[T]his is my property, I 8 can throw you and your children out whenever I want,” and “You must need some sex or 9 something how you are acting.” (Id. at 4.) Two days after moving into her apartment unit, Ms. 10 Asmelashe contacted various municipal agencies regarding the rodent problems in her unit. (Id. at 11 5.) Additionally, Ms. Asmelashe has dealt with Mr. Lee disrespecting her regarding rent 12 payments in front of other tenants, and she alleges that Mr. Lee never gave her a receipt for her 13 move-in deposit or, as of March 26, 2020, a copy of the signed lease agreement. (Id. at 5-6.) 14 The complaint alleges that Mr. Lee “had [the] tenant at” a neighboring apartment unit 15 “harass[]” Ms. Asmelashe regarding a trash can and that the tenant has stolen Ms. Asmelashe’s 16 mail in order to “force [her] out” of the apartment complex. (Id. at 6.) Mr. Lee had another tenant 17 threaten Ms. Asmelashe in front of her daughter with the same intention of forcing her to move. 18 (Id.) This conduct—along with threats from Mr. Lee’s “conspiracy partners” to hurt her 19 children—resulted in Ms. Asmelashe moving her children to a family member’s home, and filing 20 2 restraining orders to protect herself from Mr. Lee and any orders he may issue to others “to hurt 21 [Ms. Asmelashe].” (Id. at 6-7.) 22 LEGAL STANDARD 23 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it is 24 frivolous, fails to state a claim, or contains a complete defense to the action on its face. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e)(2) parallels the language of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 12(b)(6) regarding dismissals for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also 27 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint therefore must allege 1 544, 555–57 (2007). While a court must construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally, see 2 Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir. 1984), it may not add to the factual allegations in 3 the complaint, see Pena v. Garnder, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Litigants unrepresented 4 by counsel remain bound by the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this District. See Civil L.R. 3- 5 9(a). 6 Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal question under 7 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal subject matter 8 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount 9 in controversy in excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 10 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A 11 claim “arises under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based 12 on federal law—“an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. 13 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 14 DISCUSSION 15 Ms. Asmelashe’s complaint does not establish a basis for federal subject matter 16 jurisdiction. The complaint is titled “Illegal Conviction,” and Ms. Asmelashe elsewhere sets forth 17 what appear to be claims for general and punitive damages, “Pain and Suffering,” “Intentional 18 Extreme Emotional Distress,” “Sexual Harassment,” and “Force Other To Harm Plaintiff So She 19 Would Move” in addition to requests for “[Future] Medical” and “Any future medical problem, 20 cause by the unsafe environment on the property.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 7.) The complaint further 21 alleges that Mr. Guess violated her “Quiet Enjoyment” and recites California Civil Code § 1941.1. 22 (Id. at 2-3.) The complaint’s recitation of these state law claims does not provide “a federal 23 question . . . on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 24 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, while in its 25 “Statement of Facts” the complaint recites each paragraph of factual allegations as a “Cause of 26 Action,” these factual allegations are not claims. (See Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint pleads an 27 amount in controversy, $800,000.00, that exceeds the amount required in order for the Court to 1 of citizenship between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Given that Ms. Asmelashe alleges 2 || Mr. Guess is her landlord, it is likely he is also a California resident—thus defeating the diversity 3 || of citizenship required for this court to exercise jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 |} § 1332(a)q). 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons described above, the complaint does not establish on what basis the Court 7 || may exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Asmelashe’s action. Ms. Asmelashe is 8 || given 30 days to file an amended complaint. In doing so, she should: set forth the complaint’s 9 allegations in separate numbered paragraphs and set forth each claim in separate numbered 10 || paragraphs, and specify what facts and claims—if any—provide a basis for this Court to exercise 11 federal subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 12 The Court encourages Ms. Asmelashe to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s 13 Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. 14 || In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Ms. Asmelashe should make a telephone 3 15 appointment by calling (415) 782-8982. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 |] Dated: June 1, 2021 Le St’ 19 ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28