Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Christopher Endres, et ux., Petitioners v. San Diego Housing Commission, et al.

Supreme Court briefJun 13, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A — Ninth Circuit Orders

•

A-l — Order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Apr. 24,

2026) denying IFP and dismissing appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (e)(2).

A-2 — Formal Mandate of the Ninth Circuit (May 18, 2026), Case No. 26-969,

DktEntry 77.1.

Appendix B — Southern District of California Orders

•

B-l — Order Denying Motion to Reopen Case (Feb. 11, 2026), Case No.

3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC, ECF 37.

B-2 — Order Denying Motion to Reopen Case (Oct. 3, 2025), Case No.

3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC, ECF 26.

Appendix C — City of San Diego Administrative Hearing Decisions

•

C-l — Administrative Hearing Decision, Citation No. 72993512 (Decision,

Proof of Service, Liable Notice).

C-2 — Administrative Hearing Decision, Citation No. 74340449 (Decision,

Proof of Service, Liable Notice).

Appendix D — Evidence of Municipal Privatization and Public Exclusion

at Liberty Station

•

D-l — Photographs of “Private Property” and exclusion signage (Penal Code

§§602-602.1).

D-2 — Photographs of keypad-locked public-trust restrooms.

D-3 — Photograph of restroom-access redirection signage (NTC Park).

D-4 — Photographs of exclusion signage at Liberty Station Lot J.

D-5 — June 10, 2026 citation and accompanying flyer

Case 3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC

Document 42

Filed 04/24/26

PagelD.1013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Pagel

FILED

APR 24 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

CHRISTOPHER ENDRES and

JULLIENNA HENGAMEH ENDRES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

No. 26-969

D.C. No.

3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC

Southern District of California,

San Diego

ORDER

SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION;

et at,

Defendants - Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

After considering the response to the court’s February 19,2026 order and

the opening brief, we deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (contained in

Docket Entry No. 7) and dismiss this appeal as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),

(e)(2).

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

DISMISSED.

Case: 26-969, 05/18/2026, DktEntry: 77.1, Page 1 of 1

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MAY 18 2026

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

CHRISTOPHER ENDRES and

JULLIENNA HENGAMEH ENDRES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

No. 26-969

D.C.No.

3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC

Southern District of California,

San Diego

SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION;

et al.,

MANDATE

Defendants - Appellees.

The judgment of this Court, entered April 24,2026, takes effect this date.

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

3ase 3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC

Filed 02/11/26

Documents?

of 3

PageiD.942

Pagel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 25-cv-1575-BJC-SBC

SAN DIEGO HOUSING

COMMISSION,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO REOPEN CASE

Plaintiff,

ECFNo.34

CHRISTOPHER ENDRES AND

JULIENNA ENDRES,

Defendants.

On June 6,2025, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint in Superior Court of

20 California, County of San Diego. ECF No. 23 at 19.1 On June 18, 2025, Defendants

Christopher Endres and Julienna Endres filed a complaint in this Court that they described

22 as their answer to an unlawful detainer complaint. See ECF No. 8. This Court ordered the

Clerk of Court to strike the purported complaint as an improper attempt to remove the

24 unlawful detainer action. Id.

28 1 Page numbers refer to the page numbers generated by the Court’s CM/ECF system.

25-cv-l 575-BJC-SBC

Da?e 3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC , Documents?

Filed 02/11/26

A <?

PagelD.943

Page 2

'G-'Z. Qj Z-

On June 27, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of removal without attaching the

2 unlawful detainer complaint. ECF. No. 11. Thereafter, Defendants filed multiple motions

alleging improper conduct in the unlawful detainer proceedings and seeking injunctive

4 relief. ECF Nos. 14, 17,20, 22, 23. On August 12, 2025, Plaintiff requested the Superior

5 Court update the status of the state court action to reflect that the action was terminated in

6 this Court, so the case could proceed in Superior Court. ECF No. 23 at 20-21. Plaintiff

7 filed a request for Entry of Default and Clerk’s Judgment in Superior Court. ECF No. 23

8 at 22-23. On October 3, 2025, Defendants filed a document entitled “Emergency Motion

9 to Vacate Fraudulent Default and Strike Enforcement Issued without Remand,” which this

10 Court construed as a motion to reopen the action and for injunctive relief. ECF No. 24.

Finding a lack of jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action, the Court denied

12 Defendants’ motion. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 2025. The Ninth

13 Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as frivolous. ECF No. 32. On February 2,

14 2026, Defendants filed the instant motion to reopen, along with a motion for appointment

15 of counsel and a supplemental notice in support of their motion. ECF Nos. 33, 34.

A court cannot reach the merits of a pending dispute until it confirms it has

17 jurisdiction. SeeRuhrgasAGv. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,577 (1999). Defendants’

18 motion provides nothing to support jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action, which

19 does not arise under federal law. Defendants’ defenses based upon purported violations of

20 the Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Fourteenth Amendment due

21 process rights are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar,

22 Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a

23 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”).

24 Defendants provide no other basis to support jurisdiction with this Court. Accordingly, the

///

25-cv-l 575-BJC-SBC

asp 3:25.-cv-01575~BJC-SBC

Documents?

Ried 02/11/26

0(3

PagelD.944

Page 3

Zourt DENIES Defendants’ motion to reopen. The remaining motions are DENIED as

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 11,2026

Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks

United States District Judge

’ IT

■49

.21

■ - 25

■ 26

.27

••28

25-cv-1575-BJC-SBC

ase 3:25rcv-01575-BJC-SBC

' ''

’ "

’

Document 26

Fifed 10/03/25

of 4

PagelD.841

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1314':

■15'

Case No.: 25-cv-1575-BJC-BLM

CHRISTOPHER ENDRES AND

JULIENNA ENDRES,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

EMERGENCY MOTION TO

VACATE CONSTRUED AS A

MOTION TO REOPEN

Plaintiffs,

SAN DIEGO HOUSING

COMMISSION,

ECF No. 24

Defendants.

On June 6,2025, Defendants filed an unlawful detainer complaint in Superior Court

20 of California, County of San Diego. ECF No. 23 at 19.1 On June 18, 2025, Plaintiffs

2.1 Christopher Endres and Julienna Endres filed a complaint in this Court that they described

.22

as their answer to an unlawful detainer complaint. See ECF No. 8. This Court ordered the

Clerk of Court to strike the purported complaint as an improper attempt to remove the

unlawfol detainer action from state court to federal court. Id.

2.5

{ Page numbers refer to the page numbers generated by the Court’s CM/ECF system.

25-CV-00850-BJC-BLM

3ase 3:25tCV-01575-BJC-SBC

Document 26

Fited 10/03/25

PagelD.842

Page 2

The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ filing for failure to comply with local rules and the

2 requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)-(b). Under that statute, only a defendant may remove

a civil action to federal court, and must do so within 30 days of receiving the initial

4 pleading. A valid notice of removal must be signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

5 Rules of Civil Procedure and must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for

6 removal, along with copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon the

7 defendant(s) in the action. Here, Plaintiffs identify ECF No. 1 as their Answer to the state

8 court Unlawful Detainer Action and assert that the case is removable based on a federal

9 question. See ECF No. 1 at 12. To serve as a valid notice of removal, however, the filing

10 must satisfy the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)-(b). Because the

document does not comply with these requirements, the Court struck the filing and closed

12 the case on June 24,2025.

On June 27,2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of removal without attaching the unlawful

14 detainer complaint. ECF. No. 11. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed multiple motions alleging

15 improper conduct in the unlawful detainer proceedings and seeking injunctive relief. ECF

16 Nos. 14, 17, 20, 22, 23. Because Plaintiffs case was closed on June 24, 2025, all

17 subsequently filed motions are moot, and the Court cannot rule on them.

On August 12, 2025, Defendants requested the Superior Court update the status of

19 the unlawfill detainer state court action to reflect that the action was terminated in federal

20 court, so the case could proceed in Superior court. ECF No. 23 at 20-21. The same day,

21 Defendants filed a request for Entry of Default and Clerk’s Judgment in Superior Court.

22 Id. at 22-23.

On October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Emergency Motion to

24 Vacate Fraudulent Default and Strike Enforcement Issued without Remand,” in which they

25 seek an order vacating the default judgment and striking a Sheriffs Notice to Vacate. ECF

26 No. 24. They also request a stay of any enforcement actions and seek protective orders.

27 Id. This Court Construes the request as a motion to reopen the action that was dismissed

28 on June 24,2025.

25-cv-00850-BJC-BLM

Filed 10/03/25

3as,e3;25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC .Document26

PagelD.843

Page 3

-3 - ^33

For a case to proceed in federal court, the Court must have subject matter

2 jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only if one of two conditions

3 is met: (A) the case presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (B) there is

4 complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy

5 exceeds $75,000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The burden of establishing subject matter

6 jurisdiction rests with the party seeking removal. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846

7 F.2d 1190,1195 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court cannot proceed to the merits of a dispute unless

8 and until it confirms that it has jurisdiction. SeeRuhrgasAG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S.

9 574, 577 (1999). A party invoking the federal removal statute must demonstrate a valid

10 statutory basis for jurisdiction, either through the presence of a federal question or through

diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; see also Ely Valley Mines, Inc. v. Hartford

12 Acc. & Indem. Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, Plaintiffs attempted to remove a state court unlawful detainer action, asserting

14 federal question jurisdiction based on alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, the

15 Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. See ECF No. 11 at 2.

16 However, unlawful detainer actions do not arise under federal law. See Chapman v.

17 Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that federal

18 courts may not exercise jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions). Moreover, the

19 assertion of a federal defense is not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. See

20 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“[FJederal jurisdiction exists only

21 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded

22 complaint.”). Plaintiffs have provided no other basis for jurisdiction, and thus fail to

23 establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Additionally, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. For diversity jurisdiction,

25 the parties cannot reside in the same state. Here, both Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in

26 California. This is yet another reason why this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide Plaintiffs

27 with the relief tftey seek.

25-CV-OO85O-BJC-BLM

ase 3:25-cv-01575-BJC-SBC

Document 26

of 4

Filed 10/03/25

PagelD.844

Page 4

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs “Emergency Motion to Vacate

2 Fraudulent Default and Strike Enforcement Issued without Remand” construed as a motion

3 to reopen the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 3,2025

Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks

United States District Judge

25-CV-00850-BJC-BLM

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.