Borenstein v. Stonegate Apartments
2:16-cv-02937
D. Nev.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian Borenstein, proceeding pro se, filed a one‑page complaint and supporting letter alleging Stonegate Apartments evicted him after he requested reasonable accommodations for disabilities (recent heart surgery and impending shoulder surgery).
- Plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and filed a motion to stay the eviction.
- The magistrate judge granted IFP status but screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- The complaint lacked jurisdictional statements, factual detail about requested accommodations, specific legal grounds, and clear identification of defendant involvement, so the court could not determine whether a plausible federal claim was stated.
- The court recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend; recommended denial without prejudice of the motion to stay eviction so Plaintiff may refile after amending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP should be granted | Borenstein cannot afford fees | Not addressed by Stonegate in record | IFP granted (no prepayment required) |
| Whether complaint states a claim | Eviction was unlawful and denied requested reasonable accommodations due to disability | Not developed in filings | Complaint recommended dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim; leave to amend |
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists | Implied federal civil‑rights/disability claim | Not addressed | Plaintiff failed to plead grounds for federal jurisdiction; must allege basis in amended complaint |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief (stay of eviction) should issue | Requests stay due to disability and civil‑rights violations | Not addressed | Motion to stay denied without prejudice; may refile after amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (§ 1915 screening standard incorporates Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state plausible claim; legal conclusions insufficient)
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (pro se complaints construed liberally; dismissal only if no set of facts could support relief)
- Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 1998) (factual allegations taken as true and construed in plaintiff's favor)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se plaintiffs should be given leave to amend unless amendment is futile)
- K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (complete diversity requirement under § 1332)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to file objections to magistrate judge's recommendation may waive appellate review)
- Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (procedural default rules regarding objections to findings and recommendations)
- Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to timely object to magistrate findings may waive issues on appeal)