Center Tp. of Marion County v. Coe

Decision Date13 June 1991
Docket NumberNo. 49A02-8909-CV-455,49A02-8909-CV-455
PartiesCENTER TOWNSHIP OF MARION COUNTY, Indiana, and William R. Smith, in his official capacity as Center Township Trustee, Appellants (Defendants), v. Lindberg COE, James W. Jones, John Doe, David Hendley, Terri Lainge, William Collins, Richmond Miller, and Stephanie Stewart-Jackson, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellees (Plaintiffs).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Allen N. Smith, Jr., Moore, Smith & Bryant, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Richard A. Waples, Peggy A. Hillman, Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Fran Quigley, Indianapolis, for appellees.

BUCHANAN, Judge.

CASE SUMMARY

Defendants-appellants Center Township of Marion County, Indiana (Center Township) We affirm.

and William R. Smith, the Center Township Trustee (Trustee), appeal from the trial court's grant of an injunction in plaintiffs-appellees Lindberg Coe, et al.'s (Appellees) class action lawsuit, claiming the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the action, when it ordered the Trustee to provide shelter for the class, and when it determined the Trustee had violated the Appellees' constitutional rights.

FACTS

The facts most favorable to the trial court's judgment reveal that the Appellees brought suit against Center Township and the Trustee on behalf of the homeless poor in Center Township. The trial court certified the class as "all persons who, as of January 25, 1989, and thereafter, are poor, homeless persons in Center Township, Marion County, Indiana, and eligible for shelter assistance from the Center Township Trustee...." Record at 316 (emphasis supplied).

The Appellees' complaint alleged the Trustee had failed to satisfy his statutory duties to provide shelter for the homeless and claimed some of the Trustee's practices violated the constitutional rights of the homeless. The Appellees sought injunctive relief and asked the court to order the Trustee to comply with the relevant statutes and refrain from violating the class' constitutional rights.

After several evidentiary hearings, the parties stipulated that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and preliminary injunction would be the court's final judgment and injunction.

On August 21, 1989, the trial court entered the following findings and conclusions: 1

"1. The plaintiff class is likely to prevail on the merits of their statutory and constitutional claims because the Trustee is not sufficiently discharging his mandatory statutory obligation to provide the homeless poor in Center Township with emergency shelter assistance....

2. The trustee is obligated under I.C. 12-2-1-6, 10(b) and 20(a) to provide the plaintiff class with emergency shelter assistance....

3. The homeless poor people of Center Township have an urgent need for transportation assistance and emergency daytime and nighttime shelter assistance which the Trustee is not adequately providing....

4. The Trustee partially discharges his mandatory obligation to provide emergency shelter by reimbursing private religious mission shelters for the feeding and sheltering of the homeless, however, the shelters become full, have numerous restrictions on their services and require those people staying there to attend religious services....

5. There are insufficient emergency family shelters in Center Township, with the result being that many families, including children, are turned away....

6. There are insufficient emergency shelter facilities in Center Township for those homeless who have had any alcohol to drink or who are in need of detoxification and medical treatment for substance abuse problems....

7. The Trustee recognizes that he has a statutory obligation to provide emergency shelter assistance, but claims that he lacks the funds necessary to sufficiently discharge his obligation....

8. The Trustee has not yet exhausted his statutory remedies to obtain more funding....

9. Numerous members of the plaintiff class, especially women and children, and those individuals with substance abuse problems, are unable to obtain overnight and daytime shelter....

10. The Trustee's failure to adequately discharge his statutory duty to provide for the shelter needs of the plaintiff class violates the due process rights of the plaintiff class....

11. The Trustee's provisions for the emergency shelter needs of those homeless individuals who are able to secure space in the shelters and lack of provision for the emergency shelter needs of those homeless who are unable to gain admittance to the shelters violates the latter classes' [sic] rights to the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 23 of the Indiana Constitution....

12. The Trustee's use of religious missions which require attendance at religious services as a condition of shelter, violates the rights of those individuals who object to attending such services to the free exercise of religion, their rights to freedom of conscience and belief, their right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, and their right not to be compelled to attend any place of worship, as guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Art. I, Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Indiana Constitution. This practice may also violate the establishment clause of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the prohibition against any public monies being spent for the benefit of any religious institution, as prohibited by Art. I, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution....

13. The Trustee has an obligation to provide any necessary deposit or security payments for long-term housing and is presently fulfilling that obligation....

14. The Trustee inadequately discharges his obligation to provide shelter assistance by substantially limiting the stock of long-term housing available to qualified applicants for such assistance to those rental units and landlords willing to accept the Trustee's 'Landlord's Agreement' as it now exists....

15. The Trustee inadequately discharges his obligation to provide shelter assistance by refusing to provide applicants for shelter assistance with a list of landlords with vacancies and willing to accept the 'Landlord's Agreement.' This substantially limits the ability of applicants to secure such housing....

16. The provisions in the Trustee's 'Landlord's Agreement' that provide that the Trustee may cancel the agreement upon ten days written notice; that the landlord must waive legal rights to eviction for untimely rental payments; and that rental payments are not to be made until the agreement is received back into the Trustee's office, rather than when the tenant takes possession of the premises; are unreasonable and work to substantially limit by ninety-percent or more the otherwise available housing for qualified applicants for shelter assistance from the Trustee....

17. The failure of the Trustee to discharge his statutory and constitutional duties to provide shelter to the homeless poor places members of the plaintiff class in grave risk of physical and emotional harm, including:

(a) greater susceptibility to physical ailments, infirmities and life-threatening weather conditions; and,

(b) greater risk of physical assault by others, (over one-third of the homeless have been victims of physical assault while homeless)....

18. Members of the plaintiff class will suffer immediate and irreparable physical and emotional harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted ordering the Trustee to provide for their emergency shelter needs....

19. The plaintiff class' remedies at law are inadequate because no money damages can insure that the Trustee will follow his statutory and constitutional obligations, and because no amount of money damages can adequately compensate the plaintiffs for the severe, life-threatening effect of the Trustee's failure to provide them emergency shelter.

20. The public interest would be served by the issuance of a preliminary injunction because the health and safety of the homeless poor would be protected and because the will of the people of Indiana, as expressed through the laws passed by their elected representatives, and by the Indiana and United States Constitutions, would be served.

21. The balance of harm weights [sic] in the plaintiffs' favor. The harm of not issuing an injunction is great because of the severe life-threatening conditions suffered by plaintiffs; the harm to the Trustee of issuing an injunction is minimal because all that is required is that the Trustee perform his statutory and constitutional obligations and because the Trustee has not exhausted his statutory sources of revenue.

Based on the foregoing conclusions, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Trial Rule 65(A), is hereby GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion To Certify Class Action is GRANTED.

3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay Discovery are DENIED.

4. The Center Township Trustee shall provide emergency daytime and evening shelter for those class members who are unable to secure such space in the existing private shelters or who object to participating in the mandatory religious services of the private religious missions. It is clear that increased shelter capacity for families and individuals with substance abuse problems is required, as is twenty-four hour availability of such shelter. The Trustee retains the discretion in determining whether to provide this shelter by maintaining a public shelter or by contracting with private shelter operator(s) or other shelter providers, such as motels or hotels.

5. The Center Township Trustee shall provide transportation assistance to class members to seek and accept employment. The Trustee retains discretion in determining whether this aid is to be provided by contacting [sic] with the Metro Bus public transportation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Linnemeier v. Indiana University-Purdue University
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 20 Julio 2001
    ...been only one case in Indiana which has addressed Article I, Section IV of the Indiana Constitution. See Center Township of Marion County, v. Coe, 572 N.E.2d 1350 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). Retaining this claim may require the Court to embark on an interpretation of Indiana's Constitution, virtuall......
  • KR BY MR v. Anderson Community School Corp., IP 94-766-C H/G.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • 25 Mayo 1995
    ...services. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the public trustee violated Article I, Section 6. Center Township of Marion County v. Coe, 572 N.E.2d 1350, 1360 (Ind.App.1991). St. Mary's requires its students to attend religious services, but the school corporation is not being asked to p......
  • Y.A. by Fleener v. Bayh, 49A05-9311-CV-421
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 8 Noviembre 1995
    ...jurisdictions have been interpreted to provide the kind of comprehensive coverage sought by plaintiffs here. In Center Township v. Coe (1991), Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 1350, plaintiffs instituted a class action against the Center Township Trustee for allegedly failing to discharge his statutory......
  • Helton v. State, 55A01-9305-CR-178
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 1 Diciembre 1993
    ...its face may nonetheless deny equal protection if it is enforced or applied in a discriminatory manner. Center Township of Marion County v. Coe (1991), Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 1350, 1361. The defendant bears the burden of establishing such discrimination. Kashani v. Purdue University, 763 F.Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT