1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN, Case No. 25-cv-07705-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. 9

10 LANDSPHERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman filed this action against his landlord Landsphere 14 Property Management and property manager Vamsi Musunuru alleging that they unlawfully failed 15 to create an accessible parking space for Mr. Pittman at his apartment building. He asserts claims 16 under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA),

(f)(3); California’s Fair Employment 17 and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12927, 12955; California Civil Code § 54.1; and California 18 Code of Civil Procedure §§ 526 and 1060. Concurrent with his complaint, Mr. Pittman filed an 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis, i.e., without paying the otherwise mandatory filing fee to 20 initiate a lawsuit. The Court previously granted that application and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C 21 § 1915(e)(2), screened Mr. Pittman’s complaint. See Dkt. No. 13. As the Court explained in that 22 order, Mr. Pittman’s complaint fails to state a claim under the FHA. The Court therefore dismissed 23 that claim with leave to amend. The Court also determined that the complaint fails to articulate an 24 independent basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Pittman’s remaining state- 25 law claims. Because the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court also 26 dismissed those claims with leave to amend. The Court instructed Mr. Pittman that, if he failed to 27 file an amended complaint by December 1, 2025, the Court would dismiss his case with prejudice. 1 Though the Court granted Mr. Pittman leave to amend, Mr. Pittman has not filed an 2 || amended complaint. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s previous order, the Court therefore 3 || dismisses the case. Dismissal of his federal FHA claim is with prejudice for failure to state a claim 4 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2). See Cato v. United States,

, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 5 || Because the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims, the 6 || dismissal of those claims is without prejudice. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: December 29, 2025 9 10 hag bm P. Casey Pats United States District Judge 12

13

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28