Musgrove v. Hanifin
3:20-cv-00614
S.D. Cal.Jan 25, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Irvin Musgrove filed suit and obtained in forma pauperis status; he repeatedly amended his complaint, with the Fourth Amended Complaint (4AC) filed Aug. 5, 2020.
- Plaintiff alleges Oceanside Housing Authority (OHA) and staff terminated his Section 8 voucher after a missed/failed inspection in July 2018 despite a subsequent passing inspection, causing loss of housing.
- He submitted multiple Reasonable Accommodation Requests (RARs), including one via his psychiatrist after a PTSD diagnosis; OHA denied accommodations for failing a claimed "nexus" requirement and citing a possible "fundamental alteration."
- Consequences alleged: about 18 months homelessness, temporary loss of custody of his son to CPS, physical pain, and other damages; plaintiff later secured housing through San Diego County Housing Authority and regained custody.
- Court previously dismissed the Third Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); the 4AC was dismissed for failing to state a claim, but plaintiff was granted leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4AC states a claim under Section 504 / for denial of reasonable accommodation | OHA refused RARs, causing homelessness, family disruption, and damages | Not expressly articulated; court found plaintiff failed to plead elements or connect facts to Section 504 requirements | Dismissed for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B); leave to amend granted |
| Whether pro se pleadings should be liberally construed and given leave to amend | Pro se status entitles liberal construction and opportunity to cure defects | Court must still require pleading of essential elements and may dismiss futile amendments | Court applied liberal construction but required plaintiff to plead necessary legal elements; granted one more opportunity to amend |
| Procedural compliance with amendment and service rules | Plaintiff filed multiple amendments and attempted service on various individuals | Court noted plaintiff had already amended as of right and later filings required leave and were struck | Subsequent unauthorized amended complaints were stricken; plaintiff must follow Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (§1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal authority not limited to prisoners)
- Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2016) (pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed)
- Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (courts will not supply essential elements not pled)
- Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for private right of action under Section 504 requires intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference)
- Hernandez v. McClanahan, 996 F. Supp. 975 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim)
- Cato v. United States, 10 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1993) (pro se litigants should be given leave to amend unless amendment is futile)
- Noll v. Carlson, 803 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1986) (notice of pleading deficiencies required when granting leave to amend)
- James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000) (denial of leave to amend appropriate when amendment would be futile)
- Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1987) (court may dismiss after warning if pleading deficiencies persist)