Opinion
No. CIV S-08-0299 LEW DAD PS.
February 28, 2008
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND MATERIALS FOR SERVICE, AND REQUIRING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint alleging claims under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act concerning reasonable accommodation in housing and plaintiff's enrollment date for a housing voucher program.
Plaintiff initially submitted his complaint to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where it was received on December 14, 2007 and filed on January 10, 2008. The District of Columbia court found that venue was not proper in that court and therefore issued an order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff filed a motion objecting to the transfer. Although it appears from the docket for the District of Columbia case that plaintiff's motion was denied, a copy of the order was not included in the file transferred to this court.
Upon receipt of the incomplete file on February 8, 2008, the case was randomly assigned to the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew and to the undersigned magistrate judge. The proceeding has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).
Plaintiff is proceeding in this court on similar claims against the Sacramento City and County Housing and Redevelopment Agency and its executive director, case # 2:07-cv-00747 LKK DAD PS, filed April 19, 2007.
Plaintiff's complaint was accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The undersigned finds that plaintiff's application makes the showing required by § 1915(a) and demonstrates plaintiff's inability to prepay fees or give security for them. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's January 10, 2008 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to affix to plaintiff's January 10, 2008 complaint the case number assigned to the action in this court;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to send plaintiff (1) an instruction sheet for service of process by the United States Marshal, (2) one USM-285 form and one summons form, and (3) an endorsed copy of plaintiff's complaint bearing the case number assigned to the action in this court;
4. Plaintiff shall follow the instructions provided by the Clerk of the Court and shall submit the properly completed materials for service, along with a copy of this order, to the United States Marshal within twenty (20) days after being served with this order;
5. Within five (5) days after submitting all materials to the United States Marshal, plaintiff shall file a statement with the court advising the court of the date on which he submitted the documents to the United States Marshal for service;
6. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the necessary materials from plaintiff, the United States Marshal is directed to serve process on defendant Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve courtesy copies of this order on attorneys Thomas Allen Cregger and Wendy M. Motooka at the electronic addresses registered in Phifer v. Sacramento City and County Housing and Redevelopment Agency, et al., case # 2:07-cv-00747 LKK DAD PS, but shall not add the attorneys to the service list for this case. th
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA James B. Phifer, PRO SE Plaintiff Case: 1:08-cv-00046 Assigned To: Unassigned v. Assign. Date: 1/10/2008 Description: Civil Rights-Non-Employ. Secretary United States Department Defendant Of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7 Street S.W., Washington D.C. 20410Civil Rights Complaint Jurisdiction
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. Jurisdiction is founded on Federal Question. Title 28 U.S.C.Subs. 1331, Fair Housing Act Sec. 813.(A), (2) [ 42 U.S.C. 3613], American with Disabilities Act of 1990 Sec. 12133-12202.Statement of Facts
Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity,600 Harrison Street, 3rd Floor, Sanfrancisco, California 94107-1387, in January 2006. HUD inquiry no. 201077.HUD case no. 09-06-0581-8, 09-06-0581-4, 09-06-0581-D, Alleging Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, 630 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, wrongfully denied Plaintiff's request for a reasonable accommodation apartment change under ADA. That SHRA changed Plaintiff's enrollment date by three years in the Federal Section VIII Housing Program, (now the choice voucher program).
In March 2006, Irenis Green, Equal Opportunity Specialist, Enforcement Branch, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, came to Plaintiff's apartment complex for a interview. Mrs. Green used a tape recorder at the interview and camcorder to make a video of the inside and outside of Plaintiff's apartment and complex, including the wiring in the walls that was not suppose to be there. Mrs. Green made copies of Plaintiff's paper work including copies of eight notification letters from Sacramento Housing to the Plaintiff showing his status on the Federal Section VIII waiting list in 1997-1998.
May 2006, Plaintiff received a Determination of Non Reasonable Cause Preliminary of Letter of Finding of Compliance, and Letter of findings of Compliance.
July 2006, Plaintiff filed a Request for Review of Preliminary Letter of Findings, with objections.
August 2006, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the request for review with objections along with copies of eight notification letters from Sacramento Housing to the Plaintiff dated between 06/16/1997 and 03/18/1998.
March 2007, Plaintiff received a Formal Determination Sustaining the Preliminary Letter of Findings. Five months past the sixty days for responding to a Letter of Review by HUD regulations.
ALLEGATIONS
1. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development denied Plaintiff a fair investigation. Mrs. Green used three witnesses in her investigative report, Plaintiff's SHRA housing manager, Ms. Victoria Watson, SHRA Supervisor, Mr. Patrick Bohner, and Plaintiff's brother in Arkansas, Mr. Orlando Roberts who had never been to Sacramento or seen Plaintiff's apartment or complex, but Mrs. Green relies on hearsay. Mrs. Green does not interview any of the tenants of the complex, does not obtain any police records or any other type of information. Mrs. Green fabricates most of her investigative report. 2. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development conspired with Sacramento Housing to cover up the evidence proving that Sacramento Housing tampered with the Federal Section VIII waiting list by changing Plaintiff's enrollment date by three years. To keep him from receiving housing in the program and denying his reasonable accommodation. 3. Plaintiff submitted the evidence to SHRA, Mrs. Green and on review to the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in Washington D.C. 4. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff because he was Black and Disable, and violated his right to due process, and to be free from harassment, coercion, and intimidation. 5. Abuse of Power, Defendants used their authority to persecute the Plaintiff. Plaintiff gave SHRA 30 day notice after the interview with Mrs. Green because he was ran out of his housing. 6. Defendants are using the housing program to profile and social segregate participants. Defendants have a statutory duty imposed on them by the United States Constitution, Executive Order, and Federal Regulations. To administer programs within their jurisdiction in a manor that insures equal protection of the law. For a government agency to voluntarily step outside the law and violate the constitutional rights of the people it was empowered to serve, goes against the basic concept of democracy.Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Housing Act Sec. 804(a)(b)(c)(d)(f), (2), (3)(A)(B)
The Fourteenth Amendment Section 1, the right to due process.
The First Amendment, the right to petition the courts.
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d — 2000d-7.
Title 42 U.S.C., Sec. 12132.
Title 24 CFR Sec. 1.4(a)(b)(i)(ii)(iv)(v)(vi), (2)(i).
Title 24 CFR Sec. 8.4(a), (b)(1)
Title 24 CFR Sec. 9.130(a), (b)(1)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(2)(3)(4)(7), (d)(e).
Title 24 CFR Sec. 107.20(a)(b)(c)
Executive Order 11063, Section 101, 202, 302.
Executive Order 12892, Section 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Executive Order 12898, Section 2-2.
The Fair Housing Act Section 818 [ 42 U.S.C. 3617]
Title 24 Section 8.56(K)
Title 5 CFR Section 2635.101, (b)(13)
RELIEF
Plaintiff request's a trial by jury. That the court take some type of affirmative action to see that Defendants prohibited behavior does not continue. Forty million dollars in, Punitive, Compensatory, and Statutory, damages. For Discrimination, Denial of Due Process, Mental Pain and Suffering, Harassment, Coercion, and Intimidation. And any other relief the court decides to grant.
______________________ James B. Phifer IN THIS OR ANY OTHER UNITED STATES COURT CLERK=S OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF RELATED CIVIL CASES PENDING Civil Action No. __________ (To be supplied by the Clerk) NOTICE TO PARTIES:Pursuant to Rule 40.5(b)(2), you are required to prepare and submit this form at the time of filing any civil action which is related to any pending cases or which involves the same parties and relates to the same subject matter of any dismissed related cases. This form must be prepared in sufficient quantity to provide one copy for the Clerk's records, one copy for the Judge to whom the cases is assigned and one copy for each defendant, so that you must prepare 3 copies for a one defendant case, 4 copies for a two defendant case, etc.
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
Rule 405(b)(2) of this Court requires that you serve upon the plaintiff and file with your first responsive pleading or motion any objection you have to the related case designation.
NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL
Rule 405(b)(3) of this Court requires that as soon as an attorney for a party becomes aware of the existence of a related case or cases, such attorney shall immediately notify, in writing, the Judges on whose calendars the cases appear and shall serve such notice on counsel for all other parties.
The plaintiff, defendant or counsel must complete the following:RELATIONSHIP OF NEW CASE TO PENDING RELATED CASE(S) RELATIONSHIP OF NEW CASE TO DISMISSED RELATED CASE(ES) same same
1. A new case is deemed related to a case pending in this or another U.S. Court if the new case: [Check appropriate box(es) below.] [ ] (a) relates to common property [ ] (b) involves common issues of fact [ ] (c) grows out of the same event or transaction [ ] (d) involves the validity or infringement of the same patent [?] (e) is filed by the same pro se litigant 2. A new case is deemed related to a case dismissed, with or without prejudice, in this or any other U.S. Court, if the new case involves the parties and subject matter. Check box if new case is related to a dismissed case: [ ] 3. NAME THE UNITED STATES COURT IN WHICH THE RELATED CASE IS FILED (IF OTHER THAN THIS COURT): _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. CAPTION AND CASE NUMBER OF RELATED CASE(E=S). IF MORE ROOM IS NEED PLEASE USE OTHER SIDE. _____________________________ v. ___________________________ C.A. No. _________ _____________________ _________________________________________________ DATE Signature of Plaintiff/Defendant (or counsel)