Valtierra v. Housing Authority of City of San Jose

• Decision Date: 09 February 1970
• Docket Number: No. 52076,C-69-1-RFP.,52076
• Citation: 313 F. Supp. 1
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Anita VALTIERRA et al., Plaintiffs, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Defendants. Gussie HAYES et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN MATEO, Defendant.

313 F. Supp. 1

Anita VALTIERRA et al., Plaintiffs, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Defendants.

Gussie HAYES et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN MATEO, Defendant.

Nos. 52076, C-69-1-RFP.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

March 23, 1970.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted June 8, 29, 1970.

Don B. Kates, Jr., Brian Paddock, Diane V. Delevett, Peter D. Coppelman, Gilroy, Cal., Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County, San Jose, Cal., National Housing Law Project, Earl Warren Legal Center, Berkeley, Cal., Legal Aid Society of S.M.C., Redwood City, Cal., Legal Aid Society of S.M.C., Menlo Park, Cal., for plaintiffs.

City Atty., Robert S. Sturges, San Jose, Cal., U. S. Atty., for defendants.

Before HAMLIN, Circuit Judge, and PECKHAM and LEVIN, District Judges.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted June 8, 29, 1970. See 90 S.Ct. 1873, 2247.

PECKHAM, District Judge.

This matter comes before this Court on plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, their applications for an injunction, and defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs ask that we declare Article XXXIV of the California State Constitution¹ to be unconstitutional and request that we forbid defendants from relying upon it as a reason for not requesting federal assistance with which to finance low-income housing. We hold Article XXXIV to be unconstitutional. See Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 89 S.Ct. 557, 21 L.Ed.2d 616 (1969).

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action for the deprivation, under color of state law, of any right, privilege or immunity guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In this case, the non-federal defendants are acting under color of Article XXXIV in not requesting federal assistance. Equal protection cases brought to remedy discrimination against the poor (e. g., Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 86 S.Ct. 1497, 16 L.Ed.2d 577 (1966); Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969)), have long been entertained under § 1983. Jurisdiction to hear this case is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), (4).

This case is required to be heard by a three-judge court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, as plaintiffs seek an injunction enjoining defendant local officials from enforcing a state constitutional provision (see A.F.L. v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 66 S.Ct. 761, 90 L.Ed. 873 (1946)) on the ground of its repugnance to the Equal Protection Clause.

Two cases are consolidated for consideration. The first is Valtierra v. Housing Authority of San Jose No. 52076. The parties plaintiff are "persons of low income," who have been determined to be eligible for public housing, and who have been placed on the appropriate waiting lists. They are unable to occupy public housing because at present none is available. The second case, Gussie Hayes et al. v. Housing Authority of San Mateo, No. C-69-1-RFP, is consolidated with the first because of the identity of the legal issue, and is brought by similarly situated poor persons, predominately Negro, on the waiting list for public housing in San Mateo County.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Article XXXIV has impeded the financing of new housing, only 52% of the referenda submitted to the voters have been approved, even though they cannot of course demonstrate that any particular named plaintiff would be able to occupy new housing if such housing were built. In Santa Clara County, the voters defeated the referendum seeking permission to obtain housing funds in 1968, and in San Mateo County two similar referenda were defeated in 1966. Housing Director Wemen, in San Mateo County, feels it would be fruitless to attempt another referendum at present. Affidavit J to Hayes complaint. Plaintiffs' position is that but for the existence of Article XXXIV, local housing authorities would be able to apply for federal assistance if they chose; they further submit that there is evidence that in fact they would so choose. See Valtierra complaint p. 8.

There are three groups of defendants in the Valtierra case: the Housing Authority of the City of San Jose, a public entity, and its members in their official capacity; the City Council of San Jose, a public entity, and its members, in their official capacity; and the Department of Housing and Urban Development and its Secretary, George Romney. All three groups have filed responsive pleadings. There is only one defendant in the Hayes case, the Housing Authority of San Mateo County. The Court notes that this defendant has not made an appearance in the case, but rather has chosen to stand mute.

The federal defendants, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and its Secretary, George Romney, move for dismissal on the ground that, as to them, the Valtierra complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ. P. Rule 12(b) (6). The complaint does not seek any relief against the federal defendants; their joinder is not necessary in order to grant the relief that is requested. Therefore this Court ORDERS that their motion for dismissal be granted. Accordingly, the federal defendants are dismissed from this lawsuit. The Hayes case does not involve any federal defendants.

The two non-federal defendants in the Valtierra case, viz., the Housing Authority of San Jose, and the City Council of San Jose, raise several pleas in abatement which do not preclude this Court from reaching the merits of plaintiffs' constitutional claim. First, defendants contend that because California could decline to participate in the program established by the Housing Act of 1937, that California can participate on any condition. This is not the case. Certainly a condition that no Negro could occupy such low-income housing would be unconstitutional. Second, they assert that referenda are not subject to constitutional scrutiny. This is not the law. Hunter v. Erickson, supra. Third, defendants erroneously believe plaintiffs are asking this Court to compel the Housing Authorities to seek federal funding. However, plaintiffs only seek an injunction forbidding the named local officers from relying on Article XXXIV as a reason for not requesting such funds. There may be any number of reasons, quite apart from Article XXXIV why the Housing Authorities might not wish to seek federal funds at any given point in time.

We find plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause argument to be unpersuasive and therefore do not decide the case on that ground. Plaintiffs' Privileges and Immunities argument is not reached as this court decides the case on Equal Protection grounds.

PLAINTIFFS' EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT

The starting point for this argument is the now well-established standard that classifications based on race are "constitutionally suspect," Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954), and those based on property "traditionally disfavored," Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 668, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966). Both bear a far heavier burden of justification than other classifications. See, McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 194, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964).

The gravamen of plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim is that the express discrimination in Article XXXIV, as it applies only to "low-income persons", brings it squarely within the ban of a long line of Supreme Court decisions forbidding the unequal imposition of burdens upon groups that are not rationally differentiable in the light of any legitimate State legislative objective. E. g., Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965); Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S. Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620 (1966); and Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 86 S.Ct. 1497, 16 L.Ed.2d 577 (1966). As characterized by the Court in McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. at 191, 85 S.Ct. at 288:

Judicial inquiry under the Equal Protection Clause, * * * does not end with a showing of equal application among the members of the class defined by the legislation. The courts must reach and determine the question * * * whether there is an arbitrary or invidious discrimination between those classes covered * * * and those excluded.

It is no longer a permissible legislative objective to contain or exclude persons simply because they are poor. Edwards v. Calif., 314 U.S. 160, 62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119 (1941); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L. Ed.2d 600 (1969). Cf., Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16-17, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956).

In addition to asserting that Article XXXIV denies equal protection of the laws to persons who are poor, the Hayes plaintiffs assert that it also denies equal protection to those who are Negro. Although Article XXXIV does not specifically require a referendum for low-income projects which will be predominantly occupied by Negroes or other minority groups, the equal protection clause is violated if a "special burden" is placed on those groups by the operation of the challenged provision, if "the reality is that the law's impact falls on the minority." Hunter v. Erickson, supra, 393 U.S. at 391, 89 S.Ct. at 560.

Thus, last term, the Supreme Court in Hunter v. Erickson, supra, applied to the housing area the constitutional requirement for equal protection. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated an amendment to the City Charter of Akron, Ohio, which required a referendum before anti-discrimination legislation could be enacted. The Court held this to be impermissible, stating that it violated the Equal Protection Clause for at least three reasons:

First, only laws designed to end housing discrimination were required to run the gauntlet of a referendum, and the state cannot make it more difficult to enact legislation on behalf of one group than on behalf of others. The Hunt...