Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Ernie Ray Calhoon filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant 8185 Palmetto Ave LLC ("The Orchards"), a low-income 55+ housing complex, and several Doe defendants violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights by preventing him from canvassing for signatures as a candidate for state legislative office. The FAC also named the State of California as a defendant and included state-law claims for defamation, false light, and interference with prospective business relations. The court had previously ordered Calhoon to show cause regarding jurisdiction after his original complaint named only the Orchards.
Calhoon argued that federal question jurisdiction existed because his claims arose under § 1983. He contended the Orchards and Doe defendants qualified as state actors because the complex accepts Section 8 tenants and operates as a "state sponsored supplier[] of low-income housing." The court evaluated whether these allegations sufficed to establish the state action required for § 1983 liability and whether the State of California could be sued under the statute.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the FAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege a deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. The court held that the Orchards' receipt of government funding through Section 8 tenants, without more, is insufficient to constitute state action, citing Ninth Circuit precedent that compliance with generally applicable laws or receipt of public funds does not transform a private entity into a state actor.
As to the State of California, the court held that states and state agencies are not "persons" within the meaning of § 1983 under Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), and binding Ninth Circuit authority. Because Calhoon failed to establish federal jurisdiction over any defendant after an opportunity to amend, the court dismissed the entire action sua sponte. The court also noted that venue appeared proper in the Central District of California, where the Orchards is located, rather than the Southern District.
Key Takeaways
- A private housing complex accepting Section 8 tenants does not, by itself, become a state actor subject to § 1983 liability.
- The State of California is not a "person" suable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to do so after a court order to show cause warrants sua sponte dismissal.
- Venue for claims arising at a property in the Central District of California is improper in the Southern District.
- State-law claims (defamation, false light, interference) cannot independently support federal question jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the stringent requirements for establishing state action under § 1983 in the Ninth Circuit, clarifying that participation in federal housing subsidy programs does not convert private landlords into state actors. It also reaffirms the absolute bar on suing states directly under § 1983 per Will v. Michigan Department of State Police. The sua sponte dismissal after a show-cause order demonstrates the court's obligation to police subject matter jurisdiction even when defendants do not challenge it, and highlights the importance of proper venue in multi-district states like California.