Opinion
3:21-cv-00776-YY
08-09-2021
STELLA SANTARELLI, Plaintiff, v. GRAYS LANDING APARTMENTS, MAHA KAHIM, WILLIAMS CHARLES, and JENNIFER SCHWAB, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YOULEE YIM YOU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Stella Santarelli has filed a Complaint (ECF 2) as well as an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF 1). On June 3, 2021, the court granted plaintiff's IFP application and ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing by July 2, 2021, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim or file an amended complaint by that date. Plaintiff has done neither. Because plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for relief and she has failed to cure the defects, despite being given the opportunity to do so, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
The IFP statute provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include in the alternative or different types of relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). “Rule 8 does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2006) (citations omitted). “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Federal courts hold a pro se litigant's pleadings to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987); see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam) (a document filed pro se “is to be liberally construed”; a plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests) (citation omitted). “Although . . . pro se litigant[s] . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes [their] pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).
In her complaint, plaintiff alleges:
Housing discrimination that's been throughout my time here. That has recently resulted in charges against me and having my emotional support animal placed in protective custody. entitled to damages and refelif sought; emotional stress, therapist bills, trama placed on animal, Housing discrimination. She made a flase report. including other staff members that resulted in my pain and suffering. My arresst and much more.
Compl. §§ II.B.3, III, ECF 2. Plaintiff seeks $180,000 in damages for “discrimination towards a protected class. Class are as followed, race, gender, disability, sexual orientations, gender identity. False allegations.” Id. § IV. However, even liberally construed, plaintiff's complaint suffers from many deficiencies.
To begin, plaintiff has alleged that “diversity of citizenship” is the basis of the court's jurisdiction. Id. § II. In a diversity of citizenship case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, plaintiff alleges that all parties are citizens of Oregon. Id. § I. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to allege that complete diversity of citizenship exists.
This court may have federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, if plaintiff raises a claim under the Constitution or a federal statute, such as the federal fair housing act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. However, plaintiff asserts no claim under federal law. Additionally, plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts describing the allegedly discriminatory conduct and how it resulted in her injury. The complaint appears to describe controversies between plaintiff and defendants as the cause of her arrest and her emotional support animal's placement in protective custody, Compl. §§ II.B.3, ECF 2, but fails to describe any discriminatory conduct by defendants. Such allegations do not “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Finally, plaintiff fails to allege a date on which these purported events occurred. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine whether the claims fall within any applicable statute of limitations.
RECOMMENDATION
Because plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for relief and she has failed to cure the defects, despite being given the opportunity to do so, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due August 23, 2021. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.