The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 CARNEICE KATHRINE HALL- Case No. 21-cv-07770-SI
JOHNSON,
8
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
v. FRANCISCO'S MOTION TO DISMISS
10 COMPLAINT
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
11 FRANCISCO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 14
12 Defendants.
13
14 Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) brings the instant motion to dismiss
15 plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. No. 14 (Motion to Dismiss). Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
16 previously vacated the hearing and decided the motion on the papers. For the reasons stated below,
17 the Court hereby GRANTS CCSF’s motion with leave to amend.
18
19 BACKGROUND
20 Pro se plaintiff, Carneice Katherine Hall-Johnson, is a “negro” woman who suffers from
21 asthma and lives in San Francisco, CA. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1 (Complaint).
22 The complaint names CCSF as a defendant and states: “Mayor's Office of Housing and
23 Community Development, or ("MOHCD") is the asset manager of The City and County of San
24 Francisco Housing Stock FIVE88, located at 588 Mission Bay Blvd N, San Francisco, California
25 94158.” Id. ¶ 3.
26 The complaint alleges Chinatown Community Development Center (“CCDC”), “is an
27 affordable housing community professionally management company that manages FIVE88
1 CCDC is “part of a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance within the meaning of
2 Title VI. Here, Defendants were acting under color of state law when they violated Plaintiff’s
3 constitutional and other federal rights.” Id.
4 On September 22, 2021, Ms. Hall-Johnson received in the mail, and that same day submitted,
5 an application for FIVE88 located at 588 Mission Bay Boulevard North, San Francisco. Id. ¶ 8.
6 Plaintiff attached her proof of income from the Social Security Administration, Supplemental
7 Security Income, including the certification form for Section 42 Tax Credit Program qualification,
8 and submitted the application to FIVE88. Id. FIVE88 allegedly forwarded plaintiff’s information
9 to the Section 42 Tax Credit and LOSP Compliance Department. Id. Plaintiff also alleges FIVE88
10 emailed her inquiring if she received any subsidy. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff replied saying the only subsidy
11 she received was her Social Security Income. Id. ¶ 9.
12 On September 27, 2021, plaintiff alleges she received a letter from FIVE88, stating it could
13 not approve her application for residency because of her social security income. Id. ¶ 10. The next
14 day, plaintiff, with a legal public relations specialist from HCOPP L.L.C., called the CCDC to
15 inquire about the denial of plaintiff’s application, including the denial of the Section 42 Tax Credit
16 Certification and LOSP subsidy. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges a CCDC Manager, Ken, answered the
17 call, and told the HCOPP L.L.C. public relations specialist that plaintiff’s application was denied
18 because she “was disabled, receiving SSI payments, and was black, and only Chinese people, and
19 Chinese speaking people qualified for the Section 42 Tax Credit Program and LOSP subsidy
20 program to participate in housing opportunities, and subsidies at FIVE through Chinatown
21 Community Development Center, and The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community
22 Development.” Id. ¶ 12.
23 On October 3, 2021, plaintiff filed a housing discrimination claim with the Department of
24 Fair Employment and Housing against CCDC, MOHCD, and the city of San Francisco. Id. ¶ 13.
25 The next day, plaintiff submitted a government claim. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges defendants
26 discriminated against her because of her race and disability, and she is now homeless as a result. Id.
27 ¶¶ 15-16.
1 Doctrine), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
2 1973, the Fair Housing Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1988, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
3 Title VI § 2000, the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq.), and 42 U.S.C.
4 §§ 1981 and 1982. Id. ¶¶ 17-50.
5
6 LEGAL STANDARD
7 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if
8 it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
9 dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
10 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires
11 the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
12 unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While courts do not require “heightened
13 fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the
14 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570.
15 In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
16 Court must assume the plaintiff’s allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in her
17 favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the Court is
18 not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
19 fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
20 Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
21 lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
22 Court has an obligation to “construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the [plaintiff] the benefit
23 of any doubt.” Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). However, pro
24 se pleadings must still allege facts sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether a claim
25 has been stated. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
26 If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend.
27 When granting a motion to dismiss, the court is generally required to provide pro se litigants with
1 be overcome by amendment.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1987). In
2 determining whether amendment would be futile, the Court examines whether the complaint could
3 be amended to cure the defect requiring dismissal “without contradicting any of the allegations of
4 [the] original complaint.” Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to
5 amend should be liberally granted. Id. at 296-97.
6
7 DISCUSSION
8 Defendant CCSF’s motion to dismiss boils down to one argument: plaintiff’s complaint fails
9 as to CCSF because it
10 does not allege … what conduct by any City employees forms the basis of [plaintiff’s]
claims against the City Defendant. Plaintiff alleges only that the City Defendant is
11 the asset manager for FIVE88, but does not allege that the City Defendant owns the
property. Nor does it allege that the City Defendant is responsible for CCDC or its
12 agents. Furthermore, the Complaint does not allege how the City Defendant was
involved with the denial of her application to FIVE88, or how the City Defendant is
13 liable for any purported discriminatory statements made by the CCDC employee in
relation to that application. Consequently, the Complaint fails to clearly allege facts
14 that sufficiently establish liability for the City Defendant.
15 Dkt. No. 14 at 6.
16 As currently plead, defendant CCSF is correct, the complaint fails to allege facts establishing
17 CCSF could be liable for race or disability discrimination. Indeed, the complaint does not allege
18 CCSF, or CCSF’s agents, made any improper statements or took any improper actions. Rather, the
19 complaint only alleges the CCDC manager, Ken, made racist and ableist statements. Id. ¶ 12. To
20 survive a motion to dismiss with respect to CCSF, plaintiff must either (1) allege a nexus, or
21 connection, between CCSF and CCDC such that CCSF is liable for the alleged racist and ableist
22 statements and actions of CCDC or (2) allege racist and/or ableist statements made by CCSF
23 employees, representatives, or agents. For example, if plaintiff can allege CCSF owns FIVE88 or
24 that CCDC’s actions can be legally imputed to CCSF, her claims are viable.
25
26 CONCLUSION
27 Defendant CCSF’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED with leave to amend.
1 Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in the claims against CCSF
2 being dismissed without leave to amend.
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 || Dated: February 8, 2022 Site WU tee
7
SUSAN ILLSTON
8 United States District Judge
9
10
11
a 12
14
15
16
= 17
Zz 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28