Merritt v. Housing and Urban Development

Background

The court had previously granted Ardy Merritt permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under the federal statute governing that status, the court screened his complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, while allowing him to amend.

Merritt then filed an amended complaint titled “Amended Breach of Contract[,] Fraudulent Enforcement of Contract” and a supporting affidavit. He alleged that SB Mann 3 LLC breached a rental agreement, including by allowing transient squatters to reside on the property. He also alleged that the City of Berkeley, which provided him a rental subsidy through its ShelterPlus Care Program, and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provided Berkeley a grant to fund the program, failed to intervene on his behalf.

Claims and Jurisdiction

Merritt asserted breach-of-contract and fraud claims and sought monetary damages against all defendants. He also sought an injunction staying an unlawful-detainer action filed in state court.

The court had previously dismissed Merritt’s claims against Housing and Urban Development for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that a person seeking money damages from the United States must first present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency, and that the agency must finally deny the claim before the lawsuit is filed. The amended complaint and supporting affidavit did not allege that Merritt had submitted such an administrative claim to Housing and Urban Development.

The court also had previously dismissed Merritt’s state-law claims against SB Mann 3 LLC and Berkeley because, after dismissal of the federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court could not retain jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. The additional factual allegations in the amended complaint did not change that result.

Ruling

The court dismissed the amended complaint without further leave to amend for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It directed the clerk to close the file. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged breach of contract or fraud occurred, or whether Merritt was entitled to the requested damages or injunction.