Harris v. Acts Syrene Apartments
| Decision Date | 13 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-cv-00405-JCS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | GAITHER S. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. ACTS SYRENE APARTMENTS, Defendant. |
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REVIEW UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff in this action is proceeding pro se. The Court has granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and therefore is required to review the sufficiency of Plaintiff's complaint to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are insufficiently pled. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order addressing why his claims are sufficiently pled no later than April 15, 2022. Alternatively, Plaintiff may attempt to cure the deficiencies identified herein by filing an amended complaint by the same date. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the request at a later stage of the case.
Plaintiff originated this action by filing a form complaint in which he listed as sole defendant “Acts Syrene Apartments.” Complaint at ECF p. 2. In an attachment, however, he also requests that he be permitted to name as defendants the Social Security Administration and the Oakland City Attorney, as discussed further below. Complaint (Attachment) at ECF p. 14-18. As Plaintiff does not require leave to add defendants named in his original complaint, the Court construes Plaintiff's complaint as asserting claims against these defendants. In the form complaint, Plaintiff checked boxes indicating that he seeks to assert a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against “state or local officials” based on “unsafe building/unlawful eviction/ defrauded an exercise room[, ] entitlement to safety, exercise room, noneviction trips[.]” Id. at ECF p. 3.
In an attached “Statement of Claim, ” Plaintiff states that he is filing this action “because of ‘write-ups' - with the ‘threat of eviction[.]' ” Id. (Attachment) at ECF p. 8. According to Plaintiff, he has lived at Acts Syrene Apartment for four years without a problem but recently, a new worker has begun “ ‘writing up' residents daily, with threats of eviction.” Id. Plaintiff sets forth four “facts.” In “Fact 1, ” he alleges that Acts Syrene Apartments conducted a ribbon-cutting ceremony “to commit fraud” for an exercise room that “isn't even finished . . . No. water/ restrooms/ equiptment [sic].” In “Fact 2, ” Plaintiff alleges that “most of ‘our' fixtures have fallen off; doorknobs, faucets, cabinets, etc. within the 1st few months of residency.” Id. at ECF pp. 8-9. Plaintiff further alleges that the “new maintenance man peeps in windows” and “listens outside tenants['] doors.” Id. In “Fact 3, ” Plaintiff alleges that the apartments have “no hot water” and that he demonstrated this to a building inspector during an inspection that was done “months ago.” Id. at ECF p. 10. According to Plaintiff, the inspector ordered a new solar panel for the building because the existing one was too small. Id. In “Fact 4, ” Plaintiff alleges that he continued to have no hot water and the new solar panel system still was not complete. Id. at ECF pp. 10-12. He further alleges that he is being retaliated against “with noise” outside his window, including drilling “for months” while installing an electrical box outside of his window and a maintenance man detailing his car outside Plaintiffs' window. Id. at ECF p. 12. In addition, he complains that security comes through only once or twice a day, which is not sufficient to protect from “now frequent burglaries” of tenants and mailboxes. Id.
With respect to the Social Security Administration, Plaintiff alleges that the Social Security Administration violated its own policies and his Constitutional rights when it “dock[ed] [his] monthly income for almost 1 year” without first holding a “fair hearing[, ]” causing “severe hardship[.]” Id. at ECF p. 14. According to Plaintiff, he worked as a “temp” for a security agency, National Pro Security, at five or six events over a few years. Id. He contends National Pro Security “did not pay [him] anywhere what they claimed, causing ‘SSI' to dock [his] pay.” Id. at ECF pp. 15-16. In fact, he asserts, National Pro Security “never paid [him].” Id. at ECF p. 16.
As to the Oakland City Attorney, Plaintiff alleges that he called the Oakland City Attorney and “explain[ed] the situation of [his] building[, ]” telling them that the “building is unsafe” but that the City Attorney “ignored it all.” Id. at ECF p. 18.
In the section of the form complaint addressing relief, Plaintiff states that he wants Defendants to provide “safe housing” - “preferably a HUD foreclosed home” with “front/back yard” in a “good location” - and for the “wrongdoers” to be “lock[ed] up instead of fining them.” Id. at ECF p. 5. He also seeks $1 million to cover his “pain/ suffering/ hardship[.]” Id.
In addition to his original complaint, Plaintiff has filed seven motions in this action, which the Court summarizes below.
On January 20, 2022 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint counsel to help him protect his rights as he is a “disabled [ ] senior” who does not comprehend law. Dkt. No. 3.
Plaintiff filed a motion dated January 10, 2022 entitled “2nd Motion to Request to Compell [sic] & Add ‘SSI' ”. In it he alleges that the Social Security Administration has not made his disability payments, which he receives by direct deposit, for two months. He states that two months ago he “called ‘SSI' to report lost card, order replacement” and that “for some reason, ‘SSI' refuses to pay me my money, claiming ‘we're sorry/ call back/ we[']re so-sorry/ call back.[']” Id. He states that he has made “numerous calls” explaining the “hardship they create” as he is “disabled/low income/ no extra savings or source to run to.” He also alleges that the Social Security Administration docked his pay last year without a “requested fair hearing.” He attached to this motion a letter from the Social Security Administration reflecting that Plaintiff's monthly Supplemental Security Income payment would be increased to $1040.21 beginning in January 2022, with a handwritten notation that he hadn't “received any money 2 months, and counting . . . .”
Plaintiff filed a document dated January 20, 2022 entitled “Third Motion to Request to Add SSI/Oakland Attorneys'.” In it he repeats his allegations that he has not received his Social Security disability payments and that he was “docked” last year without a hearing. He also repeats his allegations that the Oakland City Attorney ignored his complaints about the safety of his building.
Plaintiff filed a document dated February 9, 2022 entitled “Motion to Request Meet & Greet.” In it, he requests a “Meet & Greet” “to settle/resolve unsafe building [and] to move [him] somewhere safe.”
Plaintiff filed a document dated February 9, 2022 entitled “2nd Motion to Request to Compell [sic] ‘SSI' to give Plaintiff ‘his' money” with a notation “urgent” next to the caption. In it, he asks the Court to compel the Social Security Administration to pay him as he cannot pay his bills.
Plaintiff filed a document dated February 21, 2022 entitled “3rd Motion to Request to Compell [sic] ‘SSI' to give me my money!” in which he states that he still has not received his money despite “daily calls” to the Social Security Administration seeking assistance. According to Plaintiff, he has been told to “call Direct Express” to put “ ‘my money' on ‘my card' “ but that “ ‘SSI has to do that, in which they know.” He states that the Social Security Administration has been “running [him] around going on three months” and causing [unnecessary hardship” and that he is “begging everyone, starving, needing housing supplies” and getting “nothing.” He states that instead of paying him, the Social Security Administration sends him “stupid unnecessary documents” and attaches three documents he received from the Social Security Administration in 2021.
Plaintiff filed a document dated February 16, 2022 entitled “Plaintiff's motion to request to file an injunction to move.” In it he asks the Court to have him moved to a “4-star hotel” due to the dangerous and unsafe condition of his building.
Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6); see also Diaz v. Int'l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court takes “all allegations of material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non-moving ...
To continue reading
Request your trial