Smith v. Henry

Background

Mark Smith sued Arlene Henry, Jones Memorial Homes Inc., “Rosie,” and Alton Management Corp. He alleged that the defendants prevented him from accessing his mail. According to the initial complaint, Henry, apparently a manager at Jones Memorial Home and possibly Smith’s landlord, had keys to new mailboxes in Smith’s apartment building. Smith said that Rosie, described as an administrative employee, told him Henry had the keys and later said Henry had instructed her not to give him a key. Smith also alleged that Henry threatened a mail carrier who delivered mail to the building. The complaint referred to a contentious eviction proceeding that had been dismissed by the San Francisco County Superior Court and to an earlier alleged lock change.

Smith represented himself and was proceeding without paying the filing fee. His amended complaint asserted one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two claims under the Department of Housing and Urban Development Model Lease. He requested punitive damages, injunctive relief, and a temporary restraining order requiring that he receive a mailbox key.

Screening standard

Because Smith was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve it. The court could dismiss a complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court applied standards similar to those used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while construing a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally.

Analysis

The court found that the amended complaint alleged no facts and therefore did not plausibly plead a claim. An amended complaint must be complete by itself rather than incorporating allegations from the original complaint. The court directed Smith that any second amended complaint must describe what happened to him.

The court also found that the facts in the initial complaint did not state a § 1983 claim. Such a claim requires a deprivation of a constitutional or federal legal right committed under color of state law, meaning through the authority or involvement of a state actor. The court held that the allegations did not plausibly show a constitutional violation or that the defendants, who were private actors, acted under color of state law. The court noted that receiving Department of Housing and Urban Development or other federal funds was insufficient by itself to establish that landlords acted under color of state law.

The court further held that the HUD Model Lease did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Even if Smith’s lease was federally regulated, the court said that a contract’s connection to a federal statutory and regulatory scheme does not by itself create federal jurisdiction. The court also found no other stated basis for federal jurisdiction, including diversity jurisdiction, because the opinion said all parties resided in California.

Because Smith had not established federal jurisdiction, the court denied his request for a temporary restraining order.

Disposition

The court screened the amended complaint and granted Smith leave to amend. It gave him until September 13, 2022, to file a second amended complaint that cured the identified deficiencies. Alternatively, he could file a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal by that date; the opinion states that this would operate as a dismissal without prejudice to filing a state-court lawsuit asserting any state claims. If Smith filed neither document, the case would be reassigned with the court’s recommendation that it be dismissed. The order resolved ECF No. 12.