Merritt-Rojas v. Life Moves

Background

Taneisha Merritt-Rojas was a resident in Life Moves’s Emergency Interim Housing program. The amended complaint identified Robert Rojas as her spouse and alleged that Life Moves had evicted him from the program. The plaintiffs alleged that Life Moves failed to manage the housing program adequately, illegally evicted Rojas, prevented him from contacting or visiting Merritt-Rojas, failed to implement sanitation and security measures, searched their housing unit without consent, and took their property.

Merritt-Rojas’s initial complaint asserted eight claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a way to sue for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state law, as well as claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Government Code § 11135. After the magistrate judge dismissed the initial complaint with leave to amend, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. It added Rojas as a plaintiff and included more factual allegations about the housing facility and particular events, but most of the claims remained the same.

Screening standard

Because Merritt-Rojas had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court could dismiss it if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. In deciding whether the complaint stated a claim, the court accepted well-supported factual allegations as true and viewed them favorably to the plaintiffs.

Section 1983 claims

The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments through § 1983. To state such a claim, they had to allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law. The court explained that this required facts showing that the alleged violation resulted from a state-created right, a state-imposed rule, or conduct for which the state was responsible, and that Life Moves could fairly be treated as a state actor.

The court found that the amended complaint did not meet this requirement. It relied mainly on the conclusory statement that Life Moves was a public entity organized under California law. The plaintiffs alleged no facts showing that the alleged violations resulted from state action or that Life Moves could fairly be treated as a state actor. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The plaintiffs alleged that Life Moves violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court stated that a Title II claim requires allegations showing that the plaintiff has a disability, is otherwise qualified for the service, was excluded from or denied the service because of the disability, and that the program is operated by a public entity.

The court found two main deficiencies. The amended complaint repeated the legal definition of disability and stated that Merritt-Rojas qualified, but it did not describe her disability. It also stated, without supporting facts, that Life Moves was a public entity. The complaint did not allege facts showing that Life Moves was a state or local government, or a department, agency, special district, or instrumentality of one. The court dismissed the ADA claim for failure to state a claim.

California Government Code § 11135 claim

The plaintiffs alleged that Life Moves discriminated against Merritt-Rojas because of her disability in violation of California Government Code § 11135. The court found that this claim had similar deficiencies: the complaint did not describe Merritt-Rojas’s disability, identify the program or activity from which she was allegedly excluded or discriminated against, or explain how that program or activity was connected to the state. The court dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

Because the plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint, the court terminated the magistrate judge’s earlier report and recommendation as moot. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. It directed Merritt-Rojas to file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies by January 3, 2024. The court instructed that any further complaint must include specific facts describing Merritt-Rojas’s disability, showing how Life Moves was a state actor for purposes of § 1983, and showing how Life Moves was a public entity for purposes of Title II of the ADA and California Government Code § 11135.