Carey v. Torres

Background

Cecilia Carey initially sued Mauricio Torres and Does 1-50, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. She alleged that Torres purchased the Oakland building where she lived, began unlawful-detainer proceedings against tenants, sent people to change locks, used threatening communications, sought a civil-harassment restraining order, and filed false or altered documents. Carey also alleged that the conduct was intended to retaliate against her tenant-organizing efforts and displace the building’s tenants.

The court previously granted Carey permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and found her original complaint deficient. Carey then filed an amended complaint naming Torres, Does 1-50, and Community Loans & Investments. The amended complaint again alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations and added references to Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 1341. She sought $500,000 in damages and injunctions concerning access to tenant storage, future filings, and physical harassment.

Screening standard and jurisdiction

Because Carey was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint before service if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court found that the amended complaint still did not provide a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. It stated that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Carey alleged that Torres, Community Loans & Investments, and Does 1-50 were California residents. The court therefore considered whether the complaint presented a federal question.

Fourteenth Amendment claims

The court held that Carey’s Fourteenth Amendment claims could not support federal jurisdiction because she did not plausibly allege state action. State action means that conduct by a private party is sufficiently connected to the government to be treated as government conduct for constitutional purposes. The court had previously explained that Carey’s allegations that Torres used government offices, courts, and law-enforcement agencies did not show that the State coerced or significantly encouraged Torres’s conduct, or that his conduct could otherwise be attributed to the State.

The court found that the amended complaint did not cure that problem. It therefore stated that Carey’s Fourteenth Amendment claims must be dismissed and could not serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Title VII

The court stated that Title VII generally prohibits employment discrimination by employers or employment agencies. Carey did not allege that she was employed by any defendant. The court therefore stated that she could not bring a Title VII claim against the defendants and that the Title VII claim must also be dismissed.

Fair Housing Act

Carey cited 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 and 3602, provisions of the Fair Housing Act, but did not include specific facts alleging housing discrimination. The court explained that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in areas including the sale or rental of housing and related services, and can cover conduct that makes housing effectively unavailable or treats tenants differently in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing.

The court nevertheless found that Carey’s allegations might be capable of stating a Fair Housing Act claim. It held that she had not alleged that she belonged to a protected class or that the defendants discriminated against her because of protected status. Because the court found that those deficiencies might be cured, it granted leave to amend as to this potential claim.

Criminal statutes

The court rejected Carey’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 1341 as a basis for her civil lawsuit. It explained that those are criminal statutes and do not create a private civil cause of action. A private individual cannot initiate federal criminal charges or obtain civil relief based on those statutes.

Disposition

The court found that the amended complaint failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It did not order immediate dismissal of the case. Instead, because Carey was representing herself and the court could not determine that the deficiencies were impossible to cure, it ordered her to file a second amended complaint by January 17, 2025. The order required the new complaint to include all facts, claims, and defendants rather than incorporating the earlier complaints by reference. It warned that failure to correct the deficiencies would likely lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.