United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND INTRODUCTION
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff John Alfred Panzer filed a Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the application to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Plaintiff has filed a ninety-six page complaint against at least thirteen (but possibly more) defendants, "seeking declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief... as well as exemplary damages for their willful, malicious, fraudulent, grossly reckless, negligent acts, exacted on [him]." Compl. at 4, Dkt. No. 1. He states that he brings this action "pursuant to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as amended; the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to our United States Constitution; The State of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959; the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended, The Plain Language Act of 2010 as its original language and added guidance, ' suggests; and Title 42-The Public Health and Welfare Code§ 1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights, ' as well as related federal and California laws." Id. at 5.
Plaintiff states that he is "a formerly homeless, recovering addict, living with Disabling HIV, " and receives Social Security disability benefits that he uses to pay his rent. Id. at 19. Since July 2008, he has had subsidized housing at the Hillside Village Apartments in Berkeley, California. Id. at 22. Plaintiff states that "[t]his complaint should be considered copy written material as are the details, proceedings statements, in the past, present and future relevant to this case, " and he "revoke[s] the authority of any agent claiming designation to make health care decisions on [his] behalf with this very statement and my signature at the end of this complaint." Id. at 22-23. Plaintiff also requests an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, stating that "[d]ue to complications with my HIV, I occasionally have to cancel/reschedule appointments very last minute." Id. at 25.
Although his allegations are not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to raise a variety of allegations in his Complaint, including the following:
Plaintiff appears to allege that some or all of the defendants are liable for discrimination based on eviction of tenants that identify as "Black/African American, " although it does not appear that Plaintiff himself has been evicted. Id. at 6, 15. He alleges that one or more defendants provides generous financing to developers who agree to offer 10 out of 100 newly constructed units as "affordable housing, " only to then evict the low income tenants. Id. at 17.
Plaintiff also alleges that he served on the City of Berkeley's Homeless Commission, during which time he raised concerns regarding the eviction of tenants, after which he was "threatened, retaliated against, and then summarily fired from the Commission for doing so." Id. at 25. He describes defendants' behavior as "includ[ing] civil harassment, false claims, and disparate treatment in the rental lease renewal of my housing exacerbating my disability, abusing my source of income, then taking issue with my behavior in response to their hostile frightening harmful treatment as [he] reacted to defend [him]self." Id. at 26.
Later in his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he applied for Medi-Cal benefits, and a nurse at Berkeley Primary Care informed him that they "need the denial letter to apply for [his] ADAP (Aids Drug Assistance Program) extra care coverage for [his] HIV medications." Id. at 28. Plaintiff alleges that a few weeks before he brought his documents, a worker "falsified applications for federal benefits, in [his] name as documents will clearly demonstrate." Id. at 29.
Plaintiff also states that he received a notice of unpaid rent, after which he began working with a case manager at the Berkeley Food and Housing Project. Id. at 31, 33. Plaintiff appears to allege that the case manager falsely accused him of stalking a property manager. Id. at 33.
Plaintiff mentions a case involving investments offered by the City of Berkeley (referred to as "Davis v. City of Berkeley (1990), " and asks "this court to reverse this ridiculous decision in violation of the Public Trust." Id. at 37.
On several pages, Plaintiff provides summaries on a variety of topics, including the text of a 2014 City of Berkeley "Street and Integrated Watershed Improvements" bond ( id. at 37-42); a June 10, 2014 press release from the Department of Justice regarding a Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act case involving the city of San Jacinto, California and related information about the case ( id. at 42-45); a July 2014 City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board meeting ( id. at 46); "Project Assessed Clean Energy" and the use of solar energy in general ( id. at 47-48); and Michael Moore's documentary, "Capitalism, " and its connection to credit default sways, the game "Monopoly, " and the Troubled Asset Recovery Program ( id. at 48-50).
Plaintiff also alleges that Comcast "ran [him] ragged" in his attempts to schedule a service appointment at his apartment. Id. at 50-51. Plaintiff states that he adds "Major League Baseball Extra Innings every year around February for $160.00 for the season." Id. at 51. He alleges that Comcast added additional charges without his knowledge, including pornographic films. Id. at 51. He states that the City of Berkeley is responsible for Comcast's Federal Communications Commission license and needs to assign a responsible party. Id.
Plaintiff includes a section in his Complaint titled "Legal Authorities & Declaration of Policies, " which consists of various statutory provisions, which he has arranged in paragraphs to correspond with the ...