Sam Sohn v. California Housing Financing Agency

Background

Sam Sohn proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. Sohn filed a second amended complaint against the California Housing Financing Agency, Keep Your Home California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The complaint alleged that Sohn qualified for federal mortgage assistance from Keep Your Home California but was denied funds. It also alleged that Keep Your Home California employees conspired with Sohn’s former mortgage lender, Patelco Credit Union, to unlawfully foreclose on Sohn’s property. Sohn alleged that the conduct was based on disability, race, national origin, language limitations, and age.

The court had previously dismissed Sohn’s first amended complaint with leave to amend, but limited any amendment to correcting defects in the Section 1985 claim and prohibited adding new claims or parties without permission. The second amended complaint added claims under several other federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act, the False Claims Act, the Elder Abuse and Extortion Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court said those new claims were not properly before it for deciding whether the second amended complaint stated a claim, but considered them in deciding whether further amendment would be futile.

Court’s analysis

Because Sohn was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This screening requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court applied the same failure-to-state-a-claim standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), while construing the allegations of a self-represented plaintiff liberally.

The court held that the Section 1985 claims were not plausibly pleaded. Section 1985 provides remedies for certain conspiracies, but does not create an independent claim without an underlying violation of a specifically defined federal right. The court found that Sohn alleged no facts showing a conspiracy, explaining how the defendants conspired, or showing that the alleged conspiracy was motivated by discriminatory intent. The court also found that Sohn did not adequately describe the alleged disability or allege race or national origin, and did not identify a specific federal right that the defendants violated.

The court separately analyzed the proposed additional claims. It found that the Section 504 Rehabilitation Act claim lacked facts showing that Sohn was disabled, entitled to the mortgage-assistance funds, or denied those funds solely because of disability. The False Claims Act theory did not allege that a defendant submitted a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval, and the complaint did not allege compliance with the statute’s requirements for bringing such an action. The court stated that the Elder Abuse and Extortion Act and the Volunteer Protection Act do not create private rights of action. It found that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 25 C.F.R. § 11.448, and Section 112 of the Rehabilitation Act did not appear applicable. The court found that the Fair Housing Act claim did not explain how that statute applied and did not allege discrimination based on a protected characteristic. Finally, the court found that the Americans with Disabilities Act theory lacked facts showing a disability or denial of benefits because of disability.

Disposition

The court found no undue delay or bad faith, and stated that prejudice was not at issue because the defendants had not been served. But it found that Sohn had repeatedly failed to cure the pleading deficiencies and that further amendment would be futile. The court therefore dismissed the second amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice.