Arthur v. Dist. of Columbia Hous. Auth.
| Decision Date | 11 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-cv-2037 (DLF),18-cv-2037 (DLF) |
| Parties | EVELYN ARTHUR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiffs Evelyn Arthur and her son Robert Arthur bring this action against the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), CIH Properties, Inc. (CIH), the District of Columbia (D.C.), and seven individual Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers. See First Am. Compl. (Complaint or Compl.) ¶¶ 9-14, Dkt. 32. The complaint alleges eighteen claims. Id. ¶¶ 86-177. Before the Court are DCHA and CIH's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 43,1 and D.C. and the MPD officers' Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 44. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the defendants' motions.
Evelyn Arthur is a 78-year-old resident of Claridge Towers, a facility in the District of Columbia owned by the District and operated by CIH. Compl. ¶ 9. Ms. Arthur is "profoundly deaf," id., and her son Robert acts as her primary caregiver, id. ¶ 10.
This suit involves a number of defendants: the District of Columbia; DCHA, an independent authority within the D.C. government that operates public housing programs and has "a legal existence separate from the District government," see D.C. Code § 6-202(a); Compl. ¶ 11; CIH, a Maryland corporation which does business in the District and manages Claridge Towers, see id. ¶ 12; and MPD officers Harry Singleton, Tammy Whittington, Eldrick Creamer, Kenneth Daniels, Orlando Teel, Rodney Anderson, and William Lyke (together, the "MPD officers"), see id. ¶ 13.
Much of the case involves DCHA's "phone call policy" for visitors to its properties. Id. ¶ 17. Under that policy:
A visitor must present identification to the security officer on duty. The security officer records the visitor's name in a log book and then calls the resident to confirm that the resident is at home and wishes to receive the guest. If the resident does not answer the phone, the visitor must leave the property.
Id. Because Ms. Arthur is deaf, she cannot hear the phone ring when she has a visitor, so prior to January 2017, DCHA modified its "phone call policy" for her. Id. ¶ 18. This modification allowed Ms. Arthur's son Robert to visit her without calling ahead of time, and it allowed him to receive calls from and give permission to guests who visited Ms. Arthur. Id.
In January 2017, Mr. Arthur installed in his mother's apartment a video relay system, which "enables a deaf person to communicate with a hearing person by connecting both parties to a trained sign-language interpreter." Id. ¶¶ 19-20. Because of its operation and location, calls from the video relay system were "visible to [Ms. Arthur] only when she was in her bedroom, awake and looking in the direction of the television." Id. ¶ 20.
On January 18, 2017, CIH rescinded its prior modification of the "phone call policy" for Ms. Arthur. Id. ¶ 21. In a letter, it " Id. ¶ 21. Mr. Arthur complained about this unexpected change in practice, explaining that his mother was only aware of visitor calls when she was in her bedroom and looking at the television. Id. Despite "numerous requests," CIH refused to revert to its prior practice and applied its standard "phone call policy" to Ms. Arthur. Id. ¶ 21.
In May and June 2017, a security officer refused to permit Mr. Arthur to visit his mother when she failed to answer the video relay system. Id. ¶ 22. On June 17, 2017, Ms. Arthur asked her son to come to her apartment right away because she was having breathing problems. Id. ¶ 23. When Mr. Arthur arrived, he signed into the log book and presented identification, id. ¶¶ 23-24, but his mother did not answer the video relay system, id. ¶ 24. Even though Mr. Arthur told the officer that his mother was in medical distress, the officer refused to allow him to enter his mother's apartment, and the officer refused to conduct a wellness check himself. Id. ¶ 25. In fear for his mother's health, Mr. Arthur checked on her anyway and returned to the lobby with his mother so that she could confirm for the security officer that she was indeed in medical distress and had called her son for help. Id. ¶ 26.
Relying on DCHA's barring policy, see 14 DCMR § 9600, the security officer called CIH and the DCHA police to issue a "Bar Notice" to prevent Mr. Arthur from entering the premises in the near future. Id. ¶ 27-30. Though the initial police officer on the scene concluded that a Bar Notice was unwarranted, the security officer called another police sergeant, who remotely ordered the issuance of a 60-day Bar Notice against him. Id. ¶ 27. The Bar Notice "stated that [Mr. Arthur] was barred for 'Entering DCHA property without presenting identification or properly signing the visitor log.'" Id. ¶ 31.
That day, Ms. Arthur sent a letter to "Housing Authority/Claridge Towers" grantingpermission for her son to enter her apartment after signing in. Id. ¶ 35. In the letter, "[s]he explained that, due to her well-known and documented disability, she was unable to hear the phone ringing and would be unaware she has a phone call unless she was sitting directly in front of her television monitor in her bedroom on which the Video Relay System hardware is installed." Id. She also explained that she is "dependent on her son Robert for her daily care and requested that Claridge Towers resume its prior practices of: (a) allowing her son to visit her without requiring her to answer the phone, and (b) of having security call her son to approve other visitors on her behalf." Id. ¶ 36. Ms. Arthur received no response to this letter. Id. ¶ 37. Several days later, she wrote a second letter to "Claridge Towers Management" in which "she reiterated her request for an accommodation of her disability so that her son would be allowed to enter her home after signing in but without having to call first and without being harassed by 'any officer.'" Id. ¶ 38. This letter "pointed out that her son was her only family in Washington and 'the only person I have to help me.'" Id. She again received no response. Id. ¶ 39.
On June 26, Claridge Towers sent Ms. Arthur a letter (which did not reference her previously sent letters) informing her of the Bar Notice issued for Mr. Arthur. Id. ¶ 40. The letter stated that the Bar Notice would expire on August 17, 2017 and that she could face eviction and landlord-tenant court proceedings if she permitted her son to access the premises. Id. Mr. Arthur twice applied to the DCHA Office of Public Safety to have the Bar Notice lifted, yet he was denied each time. Id. ¶¶ 44-47. Ms. Arthur and her son claim that the version of the Bar Notice provided to the reviewing Office of Public Safety stated an additional and previously unchecked reason for issuance: that Mr. Arthur was "excessively loud" and engaged in "disruptive conduct or disturbing the peace of DCHA residents/employees." Id. ¶ 46.
On June 20 and July 18, 2017, Ms. Arthur submitted formal requests to DCHA for"additional hearing-impaired hardware" and a live-in aide. Id. ¶ 42. Both were approved on July 20, 2017. Id. Ms. Arthur also requested that her son be designated as her live-in aide, but on August 2, 2017, DCHA rejected her request on the ground that he was a registered sex offender in the District. Id. ¶ 43.
On August 10, 2017, Mr. Arthur confirmed with the DCHA police that the last day of his Bar Notice was August 17 and that he could reenter the premises on August 18. Id. ¶ 48. He called the DCHA police again on August 18, and the officer on duty "confirmed that there was no Bar Notice in effect for [Mr. Arthur] at Claridge Towers." Id. ¶ 49. However, later that day when he arrived at Claridge Towers, the security officer "stated that a second Bar Notice had been issued against Mr. Arthur on July 11, 2017," preventing him from entering the premises for six months. Id. ¶¶ 50-52. Neither Mr. Arthur nor his mother had been informed of this second Bar Notice. Id. ¶ 53. "The Bar Notice was stamped with a fax date of August 18, 2017 from Claridge Towers to DCHA, more than a month after its alleged issuance." Id.
Other visitors also were denied entry to Ms. Arthur's apartment. On August 22, 2017, the security officer refused to allow a service technician into Ms. Arthur's apartment to fix her video relay system. Id. ¶ 56. Though she "had notified Claridge Towers' staff in advance and in writing that her Video Relay System was not working and had notified them, as provided by 14 DCMR § 9600.3, of the date and time the service technician would arrive," the technician was turned away when Ms. Arthur did not answer the video relay system he was there to fix. Id. Friends of Ms. Arthur's also were turned away in September and November 2017 when she failed to answer the video relay system. Id. ¶ 58.
On August 30, 2017, MPD officers executed a warrant for Mr. Arthur's arrest while he was at his mother's apartment in Claridge Towers. Defs.' Statement of Undisputed MaterialFacts (Defs.' Statement of Facts) ¶¶ 2-3, Dkt. 44-1. Mr. Arthur did not respond to the officers' knocking at his mother's door for more than ten minutes. D.C.'s Mot. Ex. 1 (Video 1) at 11:06; see R. Arthur Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, Dkt. 45-5. The officers entered the apartment with a key. Video 1 at 11:53; Defs.' Statement of Facts ¶ 5; R. Arthur Decl. ¶ 12. Once the officers entered her apartment, Ms. Arthur became agitated and Mr. Arthur attempted to calm his mother down. Video 1 at 12:05-35. The officers told Mr. Arthur to let her go and he initially refused. D.C.'s Mot. Ex. 2 (Video 2) at 00:22-:50. After the officers told Mr. Arthur to put his hands behind his back several times, he put one hand back and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial