Bernstein v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Background

Mary Helen Bernstein and Elizabeth Grace Tigano, who were proceeding without lawyers, filed a discrimination action against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and several individual defendants. The plaintiffs alleged ongoing harassment and abuse by residents of their respective multi-resident housing complexes. Their allegations included claims that Bernstein’s upstairs neighbor repeatedly dropped weights and furniture, and that Tigano was watched, followed, threatened, defamed, and otherwise harassed at her housing complex.

The plaintiffs said they had filed civil harassment restraining orders and complaints with the housing agencies. They alleged that the agencies failed to intervene, protect, or assist them. The First Amended Complaint asserted 36 claims, including discrimination based on race, religion, and disability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and claims without a clearly identified legal basis. The complaint was 177 pages long, and the plaintiffs separately filed more than two dozen documents totaling over 700 pages.

Screening standard

Because the plaintiffs had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal if the case is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court explained that this review uses the same basic standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must contain enough factual detail to make the claim plausible and must give defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds for them. The court also stated that self-represented plaintiffs’ pleadings must be read liberally and that they ordinarily must be given an opportunity to amend unless the defects cannot be cured.

Reasons for finding the complaint deficient

The court concluded that the First Amended Complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because its length and organization made it impossible to determine the specific factual and legal basis of the claims. The plaintiffs did not identify which defendants were sued on which of the 36 claims, and they did not identify the actual legal basis for most of the claims.

The court also addressed examples of substantive deficiencies. The plaintiffs appeared to assert race and religious discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court stated that they had not pleaded a viable claim under that statute and that § 1981 does not cover religious-discrimination claims. The court further stated that the plaintiffs had not shown how the defendants caused their alleged emotional distress, as required for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Disposition

The court concluded that the First Amended Complaint failed Section 1915 screening. It did not order dismissal at that stage. Instead, it allowed the plaintiffs 60 days to file another amended complaint that clearly and briefly summarized the facts, identified the legal basis for each claim, and identified which defendants were named for each claim. The order stated that if the plaintiffs did not respond, or if a new complaint still failed to state a claim, the court might prepare a report and recommendation recommending dismissal. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.