Nordheim v. Tenderloin
- Donna Ryu
- 4:25-cv-04969
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Odin Nordheim v. Code Tenderloin, Judge Tigar dismissed Nordheim’s second amended complaint with prejudice after screening, finding it failed to state a claim.
Odin Nordheim’s claims against Code Tenderloin were dismissed with prejudice, ending the case.
What happened
Odin Nordheim v. Code Tenderloin concerned Nordheim’s removal and exclusion from Code Tenderloin’s “All Star Job Readiness Program.” Nordheim filed the case without a lawyer and sued Code Tenderloin, a private organization.
Nordheim claimed that Code Tenderloin violated his constitutional rights by denying him fair procedures and retaliating against him, and that it discriminated against him because of a disability and failed to provide accommodations. He brought the constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law and the disability claims under federal disability-rights laws.
Judge Jon S. Tigar screened the second amended complaint and dismissed it with prejudice for failing to state a claim. The court found that Nordheim did not adequately allege that Code Tenderloin acted on behalf of the state or provide the factual details needed for his disability-related claims, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Nordheim v. Tenderloin · No. 4:25-cv-04969
- Donna Ryu
- Mar. 6, 2026
Background
The court screened Odin Nordheim’s second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Nordheim proceeded without a lawyer and sued Code Tenderloin over his “removal and exclusion” from its “All Star Job Readiness Program.”
The second amended complaint asserted:
- procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; - disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; - disability discrimination and failure-to-make-reasonable-modifications claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and - retaliation claims based on activities protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
Constitutional Claims
The court explained that Code Tenderloin was a private party. To pursue claims under Section 1983, Nordheim needed to allege facts showing that Code Tenderloin acted under color of state law—that is, that its conduct was fairly attributable to the state. The court found that Nordheim’s allegations that Code Tenderloin received federal funding and administered certain decisions as part of a jointly coordinated workforce program were vague, conclusory, and insufficient to establish state action. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations with prejudice.
Disability-Related Claims
The court found that the second amended complaint did not add factual allegations addressing the problems identified in the earlier screening decision. Nordheim did not identify what disability he experienced, how it affected his experience with Code Tenderloin, what accommodation he requested, or what Code Tenderloin did in response. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims concerning failure to accommodate, disability-related discrimination, and retaliation for activity protected by federal disability law.
Disposition
The court stated that Nordheim had received three opportunities to plead viable claims and that the second amended complaint repeated the defects identified in the prior screening order. It dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.