Cherrish Castaneda v. 6939 Fair Oaks Blvd TIC LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiff Cherrish Castaneda’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but finds that her complaint fails to state federal claims for First Amendment retaliation and ADA violations against her private landlord. The court grants leave to amend and declines to screen the state-law claims at that stage. The magistrate judge recommends denying the motion for a temporary restraining order and resolves Plaintiff’s accommodation and service-of-process motions.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because it did not allege that defendant, a private landlord, acted under color of state law, and it did not plausibly establish the elements of retaliation by a state actor.
2. The complaint failed to state an ADA claim because its allegations were conclusory and did not identify the applicable ADA title, establish that plaintiff had a disability, identify a requested reasonable accommodation, or explain the alleged retaliation. The complaint also raised the issue that a residential apartment complex generally is not a public accommodation under Title III.
3. Although plaintiff failed to state a federal claim, the court did not find the claims frivolous, insubstantial, implausible, or completely devoid of merit. The court therefore retained subject matter jurisdiction at the screening stage.
4. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint because the court could not conclude that the pleading deficiencies were incurable.
5. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the temporary restraining order because plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or immediate and irreparable harm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a nonfrivolous federal claim sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the private landlord acted under color of state law for purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an ADA claim despite failing to identify the applicable ADA title, disability, requested accommodation, or retaliatory conduct.
4. Whether plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
5. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the deficient complaint.

Disposition

other