Heyward v. Mosser Properties, Inc.

Background

Marco Heyward, who represented himself and was proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued Mosser Properties, Inc., which the opinion describes as the management company for his apartment complex. He alleged that property managers or others entered his apartment, stole belongings, damaged property, smoked crack, smeared feces, and placed hidden cameras and microphones in smoke detectors. He also alleged discrimination based on race and disability, problems involving broken elevators, emotional distress, and other injuries. He sought an estimated $35 million.

Heyward asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, contract theories, negligence, and other tort theories.

Screening standard

Because Heyward was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen his complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve it. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court could dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must be read liberally, but still must provide enough factual matter to make a claim plausible.

Reasons the complaint was deficient

The court first addressed the racial-discrimination claims. It said Heyward offered no facts showing that anything Mosser did was based on his race. The court therefore found the allegations insufficient to support his federal and state racial-discrimination theories.

The court identified several problems with the disability claim. If Heyward no longer lived at the apartment complex, the court said his Americans with Disabilities Act claim could be moot because that statute does not provide damages. The court also said residential apartment complexes generally are not public accommodations covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, although portions made available to the general public may be covered. Heyward did not allege that the second- and third-floor areas were available to anyone other than residents or guests, did not identify his disability, and did not state how long the elevators were out of service. The court also noted that he did not allege facts showing the property-management program received federal financial assistance, which could be required for a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. The timing of the elevator outages was also unclear, making it difficult to evaluate whether the claim was timely.

The court further stated that, when viewed alongside the Veterans Affairs notes attached to the complaint, many allegations rose to the level of being irrational or wholly incredible. Finally, the court said there was no federal claim as pleaded. Without a federal claim, the state-law claims would require diversity jurisdiction, which requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in controversy. The court concluded that the parties were not diverse.

Order

The court did not direct service of the complaint or dismiss the case in this order. Instead, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ordered Heyward to file a supplement addressing the identified deficiencies by October 14, 2024. Alternatively, if he agreed that he could not state a federal claim, he could file a one-page statement voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice so that he could pursue any viable state claims in state court. If he filed neither a supplement nor a dismissal, the court said it might reassign the case to a district judge and recommend dismissal.