Bernstein v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Background

Mary Helen Bernstein and Elizabeth Grace Tigano, who are sisters and were proceeding without lawyers, brought a discrimination action against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the State of California, the Alameda County Superior Court, the Judicial Council of California, and individual defendants. The court had previously allowed them to proceed without paying filing fees and had found that their original complaint failed to state a claim. The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint.

The second amended complaint alleged that the plaintiffs have disabilities and are survivors of sexual abuse. It described their efforts to obtain help from the federal housing agency, the California fair-employment agency, and the Alameda County Superior Court concerning alleged harassment and living-environment problems. The plaintiffs alleged that the state court and individual judges and judicial commissioners denied reasonable-accommodation requests and refused to appoint counsel. They sought, among other relief, findings that their rights had been violated, reversal of state-court rulings, and damages.

Claims and analysis

The complaint asserted seven claims, including race and religious discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claims whose legal basis was unclear, and disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim. Although the plaintiffs reduced the number of claims from 36 to seven, the court found that the allegations remained repetitive, confusing, and insufficiently connected to the legal claims.

The court also addressed the individual claims:

- Section 1981 protects against racial discrimination but not religious discrimination. The court held that the plaintiffs had not stated a colorable racial-discrimination claim because they alleged that they were white women but did not plead the required facts showing racial discrimination. - The negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was too conclusory. The plaintiffs did not adequately allege serious emotional distress caused by wrongful conduct that the defendants should have foreseen. The court also noted that the United States had not been named as a defendant and that the allegations against particular agency employees were insufficient. - The intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim did not identify conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support the claim. The plaintiffs mainly alleged that the housing and fair-employment agencies created a hostile environment and a quid pro quo. - The fifth claim repeated other allegations and had an unclear legal basis, so it failed to state a claim. - The plaintiffs’ disability claim involving the California judicial branch sought relief that would require the federal court to find that the Alameda County Superior Court had wrongly decided matters and to reverse those rulings. The court stated that such relief may be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court for state-court judgments. - The court held that the judges and judicial commissioners were protected by judicial immunity for actions taken as part of their normal judicial functions, including ruling on requests for live hearings, continuances, appointment of counsel, hearing schedules, argument time, and responses to motions or discovery requests. - The disability claim against the housing and fair-employment agencies failed because the plaintiffs did not allege that the agencies ignored their complaints or failed to help them because of their disabilities.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corle concluded that the second amended complaint failed the screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court did not dismiss the case at this stage. Instead, it allowed the plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint within 60 days. The court directed any new complaint to summarize the facts clearly and briefly, identify the legal basis for each claim, and specify which defendants were being sued on which claims. The court warned that failure to respond, or filing another complaint that failed to state a claim, could lead to a report and recommendation that a district judge dismiss the complaint.