1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DUSTIN BARRAL, Case No. 3:24-cv-00105-ART-CLB

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 (ECF Nos. 4, 7) BROOKTREE APARTMENTS and 2300 6 WEST APARTMENTS,

7 Defendants.

8 Plaintiff Dustin Barral sued Brooktree Apartments and 2300 West 9 Apartments under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Nevada Fair Housing Act. 10 Barral alleges that both apartments illegally rejected him based on his status as 11 a registered sex offender. 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 Dustin Barral is a registered sex offender. (See ECF No. 1.) He visited 14 Defendants Brooktree Apartments and 2300 West Apartments to ask to rent an 15 apartment. (Id.) Staff at both apartment complexes told him that they do not rent 16 to registered sex offenders. (Id.) Barral sued both apartment complexes in 17 Nevada’s Second Judicial District Court, and Defendants removed the case. (See 18 id.) Both Defendants moved to dismiss the claim. (ECF Nos. 4, 7.) 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 A. Motion to Dismiss 21 A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon 22 which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint 23 must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 24 is entitled to relief” and enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible 25 on its face.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

, 26 555, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). All factual allegations 27 set forth in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most 28 1 || favorable to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2 || 2001). A facially plausible claim may be dismissed for “lack of a cognizable legal 3 || theory.” Solida v. McKelvey,

(9th Cir. 2016). || Ill. Discussion 5 The Court must decide if Plaintiff may state a claim under the Fourteenth 6 || Amendment. The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's claim as arising under 7 || Section 1983, which creates a cause of action for Constitutional violations against 8 || government officials acting under color of law.

. Section 1983 9 || does not reach “‘merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrong.” 10 || Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 1999) 11 || (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,

(1999)). Defendants 12 || correctly point out that Barral may not state a Fourteenth Amendment claim— 13 || which the Court liberally construes as a § 1983 claim—against Brooktree 14 || Apartments or 2300 West Apartments because neither party is a state actor. (See 15 || ECF Nos. 4, 7.) 16 Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 17 || Plaintiff's state law claim. See

(c)(3). 18 || IV. CONCLUSION 19 The Court grants Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 4, 7), and 20 || dismisses Plaintiffs complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend before 21 || Monday, March 10, 2025. 22 The Court finds Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) 23 || moot. 24 25 DATED THIS Sth day of February, 2025. 26 en 27 ; tras / 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE