Baker v. Peters

Background

Melody Joy Baker, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued “HUD-VASH”; Rita Riveria; Theresa Santiago, identified as a HUD-VASH Supervising Case Manager; John Doe #1, identified as a HUD-VASH Administrative Director; Anthony Moldanado; and the James J. Peters Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Baker invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged sex discrimination and “elder abuse.”

Baker alleged that in May 2022 she met with Riveria, her case manager for the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program for homeless veterans. Baker said that she later learned she would not receive housing required for her disabilities. She further alleged that during the five months of her voucher period she was left in shelters or on the street, abandoned, stranded, and stolen from, and was eventually admitted to a Veterans Affairs hospital. She also alleged that at one Veterans Affairs hospital—possibly the James J. Peters Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center—someone denied her a proper diet, the right to participate in wheelchair games, and proper medical care because she is female. She sought an order requiring the hospital to become equal in all aspects and an order that the defendants be arrested, charged, and tried.

Screening and pleading defects

Because Baker was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. The court explained that it must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or part of one, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or raises claims outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court applied Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires enough factual detail to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. It concluded that Baker’s allegation of sex discrimination was a legal conclusion unsupported by enough facts. The court also found that Baker provided no facts supporting the “elder abuse” allegation. Her statements that she was left on the street, abandoned, stranded, and stolen from did not identify who was involved, what each person did or failed to do, or when and where the events occurred. The court said this information was necessary to evaluate whether Baker may have been subjected to sex or age discrimination.

The court further held that Baker had not alleged each defendant’s personal involvement in violating her rights. Theresa Santiago and Anthony Moldanado were named in the caption but were not mentioned in the complaint’s factual allegations.

Requests for criminal prosecution

The court dismissed Baker’s claims seeking the defendants’ arrest, charging, and trial because she lacked standing to pursue that relief. It explained that the decision whether to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, and a private plaintiff cannot initiate a criminal case in federal court or direct prosecutors to bring one. The court did not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court concluded that Baker might be able to state a valid claim by providing additional facts. It therefore granted her leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must identify relevant people and titles, describe the relevant events and each defendant’s conduct or failure to act, provide approximate dates and general locations, describe injuries, and identify the requested relief.

The court emphasized that the amended complaint would completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. Any facts or claims Baker wants the court to consider from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint. No summons would issue at that time. If Baker did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the court stated that the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.