Harris v. Acts Syrene Apartments

Background

Gaither S. Harris proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court therefore screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires review of an indigent litigant’s claims and dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Harris alleged problems at Acts Syrene Apartments, including an unfinished exercise room, broken fixtures, lack of hot water, alleged surveillance by a maintenance worker, noise, and insufficient security. He referred to threats of eviction and sought safe housing, criminal penalties for alleged wrongdoers, and $1 million for pain, suffering, and hardship.

Harris also alleged that the Social Security Administration reduced his Supplemental Security Income payments based on earnings reported by National Pro Security without first providing a fair hearing. In later filings, he alleged that he had not received his payments beginning in January 2022. He claimed that the Oakland City Attorney ignored his complaints about the apartment’s safety.

Screening analysis

The court considered the Social Security claims under the Social Security Act’s judicial-review requirements. For the claim that his benefits were reduced without a pre-reduction hearing, the court found that Harris adequately alleged, for the limited screening stage, circumstances that could support waiver of some administrative-exhaustion requirements. But the court held that he had not alleged that he first presented that claim to the Social Security Administration. Because presentment was required for federal jurisdiction, the claim was insufficiently pleaded as presented.

The court also found the proposed claim seeking payment of unpaid 2022 benefits insufficient. Because Harris did not base that claim on a final agency decision, the court considered whether it could be a request for mandamus, an extraordinary court order requiring a federal agency or officer to perform a clear duty. The court found that Harris had not shown that his claim was clear and certain or that no other adequate remedy was available through Social Security administrative procedures.

As to Acts Syrene Apartments, the court found Harris’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 insufficient for two reasons. Harris did not identify a specific federal constitutional right or federal statute that had been violated, and a private landlord generally is not a state actor subject to Section 1983. The court also noted that the complaint did not allege that the apartment was project-based Section 8 housing or otherwise provide facts supporting state-actor status. It further stated that tenants do not have a private federal cause of action to enforce the Housing Act’s safety and habitability requirements.

As to the Oakland City Attorney, the court found that Harris had not identified a particular constitutional right or statute that was violated. To the extent he claimed the City Attorney had a duty to pursue criminal charges against the apartment owner or others, the court stated that prosecutorial immunity would likely bar that claim.

Appointment of counsel and order

The court explained that appointed counsel is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in exceptional circumstances. Although Harris satisfied the financial-need portion of that inquiry, the court found no exceptional circumstances because he had not stated viable claims and the court could not determine his likelihood of success while amendment remained possible.

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Harris to show cause by April 15, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed. Alternatively, Harris could file an amended complaint by that date addressing the deficiencies. The court denied Harris’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewing it later. The order did not dismiss the case at that stage.