SITA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KEREN TAMALI SITA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-1422 (UNA)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 	)
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a resident of Vermont, Compl. at 4, allegedly filed a housing discrimination
claim with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, see id. at 5. The matter was assigned to an investigator who
allegedly failed to handle the complaint properly, and after having an in-person meeting with
Plaintiff, allegedly “made or responded to communications” from Plaintiff in an “inappropriate,
unprofessional, and sexually suggestive” manner. Id. at 6. Plaintiff deemed “such conduct . . .
unwelcome, irrelevant to the investigative process, and [it] contributed to a hostile and
obstructive environment in which Plaintiff’s complaint was not handled in a fair or neutral
manner.” Id. The investigator notified Plaintiff in writing “that he perceived Plaintiff’s conduct
. . . a ‘threat’ and that all future communication would be restricted to written correspondence.”
Id. HUD’s alleged “failure . . . to correct” the investigator’s conduct allegedly “resulted in the
obstruction of [Plaintiff’s] housing discrimination complaint.” Id.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court “shall dismiss [a] case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious[, or] fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Having taken judicial notice of opinions
and orders from other court proceedings, see Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d
Case 1:26-cv-01422-UNA Document 6 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Does I through III v. District of Columbia, 238 F. Supp. 2d 212,
216–17 (D.D.C. 2002), the Court finds that plaintiff has sued HUD and the investigator twice
before and lost, see Sita v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Devel., No. 2:25-cv-0256 (D. Vt.
Dec. 10, 2025) (ECF No. 8) (dismissing amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) without leave to amend); Sita v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban
Devel., No. 2:24-cv-0899 (D. Vt. Feb. 21, 2025) (ECF No. 7) (dismissing amended complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) without leave to amend, and
warning plaintiff “that a third case concerning the same events at issue in this case may result in
the issuance of a filing injunction”). And now before the Court is yet another civil action against
these same defendants raising substantially similar claims.
“A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be
considered abusive[.]” Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam).
This Court deems the instant complaint abusive and subject to dismissal as malicious. See, e.g.,
Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1972) (approving trial court’s dismissal of a
complaint, prior to service of process, on the ground that the plaintiffs sought to relitigate issues
already litigated); Day v. Toner, 530 F. App’x 118, 121 (3d Cir. 2013) (same); Hurst v.
Counselman, 436 F. App’x 58, 61 (3d Cir. 2011) (same); Dantzler v. U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Comm’n, 810 F. Supp. 2d 312, 320 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[T]he court’s review of the
plaintiff’s current claims and his previous claims indicate that the plaintiff’s current claims have
all been previously litigated in the Louisiana courts and, as such, should be considered
abusive.”).
Case 1:26-cv-01422-UNA Document 6 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Judicial resources are limited. “When declaring that a successive in forma pauperis suit
is ‘malicious’ the court should insure that the plaintiff obtains one bite at the litigation apple—
but not more.” Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has had her bite.
An appropriate Order shall issue today.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
United States District Judge
DATE: October 15, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-01422-UNA Document 6 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3