Filho v. Mercy Housing California XVII, LP

Background

Roberto Filho, who was representing himself, was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court then screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review of claims brought by a person proceeding without the filing fee and dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

The complaint identified Mercy Housing California XVII, LP as the only defendant in its caption, parties section, and claims section. In the factual allegations, however, Filho also named Perla Tiscareno, described as a property manager. He asserted a Fair Housing Act claim based on disability discrimination and the alleged denial of a reasonable accommodation needed to use and enjoy his dwelling.

Filho alleged that he has HIV, a traumatic brain injury, and other physical and mental impairments. He alleged that Mercy Housing knew of his disability and that he gave the property owner a domestic-violence restraining order concerning his former boyfriend. He further alleged that his former boyfriend and the former boyfriend’s friends entered the property, harassed him, and surveilled or invaded his privacy. Filho said he notified Mercy Housing, but the company responded that the conduct was outside its control and did not otherwise address his complaints.

Analysis

The court explained that a Fair Housing Act reasonable-accommodation claim requires allegations showing that the plaintiff is disabled, the defendant knew or should have known about the disability, an accommodation may be necessary to provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, the requested accommodation is reasonable, and the defendant refused it.

The court concluded that Filho’s allegations were sufficient at the screening stage as to Mercy Housing. The allegations supported plausible inferences that Filho was disabled, Mercy Housing knew of his disability, a safe environment may have been necessary for him to use and enjoy his dwelling, the requested measures could be reasonable, and Mercy Housing refused the request by saying the complained-of conduct was outside its control. The court noted that the property owner could potentially be responsible for a property manager’s discriminatory conduct and that landlords may, under general tort principles, have duties concerning foreseeable criminal acts by third parties.

The court reached a different conclusion as to Tiscareno. It stated that a property owner may be held vicariously liable for a property manager’s discriminatory conduct under the Fair Housing Act, but that a property manager ordinarily cannot be held individually liable for discrimination under that statute. Because Filho had not alleged facts supporting liability against Tiscareno, the court found that the Fair Housing Act claim failed as to her.

Ruling and next steps

The court did not dismiss the case at that time. Instead, it ordered Filho to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as to Tiscareno. By July 26, 2024, Filho could file either an amended complaint clarifying that Tiscareno was not a named defendant or a response explaining why she was a proper defendant. If he did not respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that Tiscareno be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The court’s finding that the allegations were sufficient as to Mercy Housing was expressly without prejudice to any later motion by Mercy Housing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a claim.