Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-07362
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing, Judge Freeman granted a fee waiver, denied emergency relief, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.
Kiriaki Moshogiannis may amend her complaint, but the current complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and no service will be ordered unless she states a viable federal claim. Almaden Family Housing was not required to respond to the dismissed complaint at this stage.
What happened
In Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing, Kiriaki Moshogiannis, representing herself, alleged that Almaden Family Housing improperly evicted her despite a doctor’s letter concerning her disability. She also alleged that the state-court judge handling the eviction case should have recused herself.
The court found that the complaint did not provide facts supporting a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or otherwise establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the complaint did not show a likely success on the merits, the court denied the temporary restraining order and stated that the motion for a preliminary injunction must also be denied.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Moshogiannis permission to proceed without paying filing fees, dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, and declined to order service unless Moshogiannis states a viable federal claim.
The detailed version
- Moshogiannis v. Almaden Family Housing · No. 5:25-cv-07362
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
Kiriaki Moshogiannis filed the action against Almaden Family Housing while representing herself. She applied to proceed without paying filing fees, sought an emergency temporary restraining order, and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop eviction proceedings. She apparently relied on the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that she was evicted despite a doctor’s letter stating that she has a disability. She also alleged that the state-court judge in the eviction dispute improperly refused to recuse herself.
Court’s analysis
The court granted the application to proceed without prepaying fees based on Moshogiannis’s affidavit describing her lack of financial resources. Because the court granted that status, it screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Screening is an initial review to determine whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
The court found that the complaint did not state facts establishing a federal claim or federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Although Moshogiannis alleged that her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act had been violated, she did not identify facts supporting the elements of an ADA claim. The court noted that it must read filings by people representing themselves liberally, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court also explained that it could not act as an appeals court for the state eviction proceeding; the relevant issue was whether Moshogiannis’s rights were violated under the ADA.
Rulings
The court granted the application to proceed without paying filing fees. It denied the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and stated that the motion for a preliminary injunction must also be denied because the complaint did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. The amendment was limited to the deficiencies identified in the order, and the court said it would not order service by the United States Marshal unless Moshogiannis stated a viable federal claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.