Rosemary Greenlaw v. Tower Adams

MEMORANDUM

Rosemary Greenlaw, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging, among other claims, a conspiracy to interfere with her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 ,- and violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”) and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal order. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Greenlaw’s FHAA claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(2) because defendants Gage and Adams, who allegedly discriminated against Greenlaw, had no obligation to provide services or facilities in connection with her residence. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(2) (prohibiting discrimination based on handicap by the provider of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling). Moreover, insofar as Greenlaw intended to bring her claim under a different FHAA section, dismissal was proper because her first amended complaint failed to provide any facts supporting her allegations of discrimination. See Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1998)…