Pittman v. Landsphere Property Management
- Pats
- 5:25-cv-07705
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Randy Pittman v. Landsphere Property Management, Judge Pats dismissed Pittman’s federal Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice and state-law claims without prejudice.
The dismissal ended Randy Dewayne Pittman’s federal Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice and dismissed his remaining state-law claims without prejudice. Landsphere Property Management and Vamsi Musunuru were the defendants.
What happened
Randy Dewayne Pittman v. Landsphere Property Management, et al. concerns Pittman’s allegation that his landlord and property manager failed to create an accessible parking space at his apartment building. He asserted claims under the federal Fair Housing Act and several California laws.
Pittman filed the case without paying the filing fee, and the court screened his complaint. In an earlier order, the court found that the Fair Housing Act claim did not state a claim and that the complaint did not establish an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court allowed Pittman to amend by December 1, 2025, but he did not file an amended complaint.
The court dismissed the case. Judge Pats dismissed the Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim and dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice because the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over them.
The detailed version
- Pittman v. Landsphere Property Management · No. 5:25-cv-07705
- Pats
- Dec. 29, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman sued Landsphere Property Management and property manager Vamsi Musunuru. Pittman alleged that the defendants unlawfully failed to create an accessible parking space for him at his apartment building. His claims arose under the federal Fair Housing Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Civil Code section 54.1, and California Code of Civil Procedure sections 526 and 1060.
Pittman also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2), which requires screening of certain cases filed without the filing fee.
Earlier Screening Order
In its earlier order, the court determined that Pittman’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act. The court dismissed that claim with leave to amend, meaning Pittman was given an opportunity to file a corrected complaint. The court also found that the complaint did not identify an independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, the court dismissed them with leave to amend as well.
The court instructed Pittman to file an amended complaint by December 1, 2025, and stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the case with prejudice. Pittman did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case. It dismissed Pittman’s federal Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2). It dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice because the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over them. The order was signed by P. Casey Pats, United States District Judge, and dated December 29, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.