Smith v. Henry

Background

Mark Smith represented himself and proceeded without paying the filing fee. He sued Arlene Henry, Jones Memorial Homes Inc., “Rosie,” and Alton Management Corp., alleging that they prevented him from accessing his mail. The court read his operative complaint as asserting claims involving federal mail statutes, breach of contract, violation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Model Lease for Subsidized Housing, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and violation of the Fair Housing Act.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. In an earlier order, the court had granted the motion because the federal claims were not plausibly pleaded and therefore did not provide a basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court then requested additional briefing about an ongoing state-court eviction proceeding. The defendants reported that the parties had entered a settlement agreement requiring Smith to vacate the premises by September 29, 2023, and that the San Francisco County Superior Court entered a judgment of possession against him on October 19, 2023. Smith did not file the response that was due on November 2, 2023.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply. That doctrine generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing a state-court judgment when the federal case was brought afterward and challenges injuries caused by that judgment. Here, the federal case began before the state-court proceedings ended, and the alleged injuries were not caused by the state-court judgment.

The court next considered Smith’s remaining federal claims involving the HUD lease and the Fair Housing Act. It ruled that Smith’s request for an injunction was moot because the state court had entered a judgment of possession. As to monetary damages, the court said the HUD-lease claim was not viable for the reasons given in its earlier order. Smith had not submitted a lease as previously ordered, and the only potentially relevant lease submitted by the defendants was Smith’s mother’s lease, which did not give Smith a right to possession.

The court dismissed the Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice. It noted that Smith did not oppose the defendants’ supplemental brief and concluded that he had not engaged in protected activity required for a Fair Housing Act retaliation claim. The court further reasoned that Smith was not a tenant or prospective tenant but a squatter. Therefore, the defendants could not have violated the Fair Housing Act provision concerning services or facilities connected with renting a dwelling because there was no rental or contemplated rental of a dwelling.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order states that the operative complaint was dismissed with prejudice and that the order disposed of ECF No. 39.