Rand v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
RACHEL LYDIA RAND
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 3:26-cv-00820-AA
OPINION & ORDER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
Self-represented Plaintiff Rachel L. Rand has submitted an Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 6, in response to the Court’s dismissal of the original complaint,
ECF No. 5. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without further leave to amend.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, all parties instituting any civil action in United States District
Court must pay a statutory filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal IFP
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), provides indigent litigants an opportunity for
meaningful access to federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees
associated with that access. To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, a court must make
two determinations. First, a court must determine whether the litigant is unable to
pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, it must assess
Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER
Case 3:26-cv-00820-AA Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER
whether the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
With regard to the second of these determinations, district courts have the
power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the
complaint on the defendants and must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Courts apply the same standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing
a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive a motion to dismiss under the federal
pleading standards, the complaint must include a short and plain statement of the
claim and “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. 	The plausibility
standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” 	Id. 	The court is not required to accept legal conclusions, unsupported
by alleged facts, as true. Id.
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by
attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). 	That is, the court should
construe pleadings by pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the benefit of
any doubt. 	Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.
Case 3:26-cv-00820-AA Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 –OPINION & ORDER
1988). 	Additionally, a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot
be cured by amendment. Id.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fares no better than her first complaint. The
vast majority of the Amended Complaint is devoted to irrelevant details of Plaintiff’s
life: the history of her income and employment; details of arrests and other police
contacts; alleged harassment by a credit union employee; decapitating a cat; famous
musicians with whom she has performed or met; her attempts to run for public office;
and Plaintiff’s being raised in a “strictly atheist household.”
Plaintiff alleges that Home Forward is funded by Defendant U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), which was an issue in the first
complaint. But Plaintiff does not allege any cognizable injury by HUD.
Plaintiff alleges she was accepted by “HUD-VASH” and Home Forward for
rental assistance in February 2026. Acceptance into a program is not a basis for a
claim. She also alleges that Home Forward, because it is funded by HUD, is “bound
by the US Constitution's Article VI and the First Amendment to not discriminate on
the grounds of religion, gender, sex, etc.” Am. Compl. at 4. Article VI—the Supremacy
Clause—has no application to this case that the Court can see because Plaintiff does
not allege any conflict of state and federal law. See U.S. Const. art VI.
Neither does Plaintiff allege any First Amendment discrimination claim, as
Plaintiff does not make any allegations of discrimination by HUD or any HUD
Case 3:26-cv-00820-AA Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 –OPINION & ORDER
employee. Instead, Plaintiff explains that she is atheist who was raised in an atheist
household. Id. at 5 She bemoans that many organizations dedicated to helping the
homeless are religious, and as such, she will not seek help from those organizations.
Id. at 4. She goes so far as to claim that “the religious organizations of this community
are putting on some show of homelessness for some political, health, or politics
reason.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s decision not to seek charity from private, religious
organizations 	is 	not 	a 	cognizable 	claim 	of 	discrimination 	against 	the 	named
Defendant.
The only two direct allegations against HUD in the Amended Complaint are
that “HUD should have stepped up to help me with housing in 2001” and “HUD, VA
and SSA are the only organizations I know to go to for help with these problems and
they have simply let me down.” Id. Neither of these allegations states a claim for legal
relief.
Plaintiff has been given two chances to state a claim for relief against
Defendant HUD. Plaintiff has failed to do so, and the Court concludes that it would
be futile to permit further amendment. As such, the Amended Complaint is dismissed
without further leave to amend. As such, all pending motions are denied as moot.
Case 3:26-cv-00820-AA Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 –OPINION & ORDER
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6, is
DISMISSED without leave to amend. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this 	day of October 2026.
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge
15th
/s/Ann Aiken
Case 3:26-cv-00820-AA Document 8 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 5