Phelps v. Housing Authority of Marin County

Background

Pro se plaintiff Briggett Phelps applied to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees. The court granted the application based on her financial condition.

The complaint referred to an inability to pay rent and utilities, a dog that allegedly became ill after being poisoned, a faulty staircase down which Phelps fell, and some form of continuing harassment or malice. The court said the complaint was difficult to understand, did not identify clearly which allegations were against which defendant, and did not provide enough facts to state a claim that was plausible on its face.

The court also said it was unclear whether the allegations established federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion stated that it appeared all parties resided in California and that the allegations involved state tort and property law. Phelps later filed 25 pages of attachments adding a defendant and allegations about disturbances outside her home, events from many years earlier, and complaints about case assignments. The court said those materials did not cure the complaint’s deficiencies.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court dismissed Phelps’s complaint without prejudice because it could not discern a legally cognizable claim or allegations establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge James Donato allowed Phelps to file an amended complaint by January 6, 2025. The order stated that failing to amend by that deadline would result in dismissal and entry of judgment against her under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).