Automated Summary
Key Facts
Pro se plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman filed a Fair Housing Act claim against landlord Landsphere Property Management and property manager Vamsi Musunuru alleging failure to create accessible parking space at his apartment building. Court dismissed federal FHA claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff was given until December 1, 2025 to file amended complaint but failed to do so, resulting in case dismissal.
Issues
- The Court instructed Mr. Pittman to file an amended complaint by December 1, 2025, or the case would be dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Pittman has not filed an amended complaint, so the case is now dismissed.
- The Court determined that the complaint fails to articulate an independent basis for this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Pittman's remaining state-law claims. Because the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, those claims were also dismissed with leave to amend.
- The court determined that Mr. Pittman's complaint fails to state a claim under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3). The dismissal of this federal claim is with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim.
Holdings
The Court dismissed the federal Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court also dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
Legal Principles
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to screen the plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint and dismissed the federal Fair Housing Act claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, dismissing those without prejudice.
Precedent Name
Cato v. United States
Cited Statute
- California Code of Civil Procedure
- Federal Fair Housing Act
- California Fair Employment and Housing Act
- California Civil Code housing provisions
- 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) screening authority
Judge Name
P. Casey Pitts
Passage Text
- Though the Court granted Mr. Pittman leave to amend, Mr. Pittman has not filed an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth in the Court's previous order, the Court therefore dismisses the case. Dismissal of his federal FHA claim is with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2). Because the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims, the dismissal of those claims is without prejudice.
- Mr. Pittman's complaint fails to state a claim under the FHA. The Court therefore dismissed that claim with leave to amend. The Court also determined that the complaint fails to articulate an independent basis for this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Pittman's remaining state-law claims.