Stroud v. Farr Rentals, LLC

ALTHEA J. STROUD, Plaintiff, v. FARR RENTALS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-95-CDP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION

October 13, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before me upon review of a second amended complaint filed by plaintiff Althea J. Stroud, who is proceeding herein pro se and in forma pauperis. For the reasons explained below, I will dismiss this case at this time, without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff initiated this action on December 23, 2019 by filing a complaint against Farr Rentals, LLC ("Farr Rentals"); Matthew Farr and Katie Farr ("the Farrs"); the City of Canton, Missouri ("the City"); and Jarrod Phillips, the Mayor of Canton. Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and I reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In the complaint, plaintiff averred she brought the case under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and other federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 and 1983, and the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). She also sought to enforce criminal statutes, and regulations established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").

The complaint was largely composed of conclusory statements with no supporting facts. However, it was clear that plaintiff believed the defendants subjected her to discrimination and retaliation in relation to property she rented from Farr Rentals and the Farrs. As fully summarized in my March 24, 2020 order, plaintiff's claims against Farr Rentals and the Farrs arose from an alleged failure to maintain and repair the rental property, and the termination of plaintiff's tenancy. Plaintiff's claims against the City and Phillips arose from a failure to inspect the rental property at her request, and a referral to a dedicated home inspection service company.

Upon initial review, I determined that the complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because plaintiff had failed to allege facts in support of her claims. As fully explained in my March 24, 2020 order, I determined that plaintiff failed to plead facts permitting the inference that she was actually treated differently on the basis of race or any other impermissible basis, as necessary to state a discrimination claim under the FHA. I also determined that plaintiff failed to plead facts permitting the inference of a causal connection between her engagement in protected activity and the termination of her tenancy, as required to state a plausible retaliation claim under the FHA. In so determining, I noted that plaintiff failed to allege even the most basic of facts, such as the defendants were aware that plaintiff had filed complaints against them. I also determined that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 or 1982 because plaintiff failed to allege facts permitting the inference that she was actually treated differently because of her race, and that the complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because neither Farr Rentals nor the Farrs were state actors and there were no allegations that the City or Phillips violated plaintiff's federally-protected rights. Finally, I concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the TSCA, and that she could not bring a private right of action to enforce criminal statutes or HUD regulations.

In my March 24, 2020 order, I clearly explained the reasons the complaint was subject to dismissal, and gave plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. I gave plaintiff clear instructions about how to prepare the amended complaint, and advised her of the necessity of alleging facts in support of her claims. I also cautioned her that the amended complaint would fully replace the original. After receiving an extension of time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2020. Shortly thereafter, she filed a motion titled "Motion for Substitute to File New Amended Complaint." (ECF No. 16). She did not submit an amended pleading with her motion. I granted plaintiff's motion, and gave her the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. In so doing, I advised her that the second amended complaint would replace the original and the amended complaint. On June 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which I now review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Legal Standard

This Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if, inter alia, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S at 556). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.").

The pleading standard of Rule 8 does not require "detailed factual allegations," but it does demand more than "an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While courts must assume the veracity of well-pleaded facts, that tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice," and Rule 8 does not "unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Id. at 678-79. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not "show[n]"—"that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

Courts must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This means that "if the essence of an allegation is discernible," the court should "construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework." Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se complaints must allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law, Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980), and courts are not required to assume facts that are not alleged. Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15.

The Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff filed the sixteen-count second amended complaint against Farr Rentals and the City, and against Phillips in his official capacity. It is apparent that plaintiff's claims are related to residential property she rented from Farr Rentals. However, while plaintiff mentions a "rental agreement," she provides no details of such agreement, such as when her tenancy began andended. (ECF No. 20 at 9). She invokes this Court's federal question jurisdiction and lists numerous authorities, but in setting forth her statement of claim, she clearly indicates that her claims against the City and Phillips are brought pursuant to the FHA and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and her claims against Farr Rentals are brought pursuant to the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 and 1983, and state law.

Plaintiff alleges she is a member of a protected class as an African American. She also alleges that her children are bi-racial, and that her husband has an unidentified chronic condition. In counts I through VII, plaintiff claims that the City and Phillips discriminated against her and her children on the basis of race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the FHA, by failing to provide services afforded to white residents; namely, inspecting the rental property at her request. She alleges that the City's population is mostly white, and claims the City and Phillips "discriminated against her in services received and failed to inspect the rental dwelling because of her race/African American and because her children are bi-racial." (ECF No. 20 at 7). She claims the City and Phillips "failed and refused to inspect the rental property of defects of" ventilation, electrical hazards, lead, and sewer gas "because of her race and national origin/African American and that of her bi-racial kids." Id. Plaintiff also claims that the City "engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct, including discrimination, that deprived plaintiff and her bi-racial children of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the United States Constitution and federal law." Id. at 13. She also claims that the City and Phillips discriminated against her on the basis of her race and her children's races "by depriving her of services by racially steering her to a realtor for the inspection." Id. at 8.

In support of her claims against the City and Phillips, plaintiff writes:

The City regulates renters and rental property. Plaintiff spoke with two representatives of the City on or around 4-13-2018. I spoke with a city clerk, a representative of the City, who told me the City offered inspections for rentals. She told me I had to request an inspection in writing addressed to the mayor before the building inspector will inspect rentals so that they'd be kept safe. I hand delivered this request to her.

On or around 4-16-2018, I spoke with the building inspector, a representative of the City, who made an appointment for an inspection and he told me that the City offered inspections for rentals. He called back later and told me, that he couldn't do the inspection and that I needed to get approval from the Mayor first. The office/City knew that I was black and had bi-racial kids, which is the reason for the

...