Dickinson v. Zanesville Metro. Hous. Auth.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:12–CV–01024.
• Citation: 975 F.Supp.2d 863
• Parties: Kayla M. DICKINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZANESVILLE METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

975 F.Supp.2d 863

Kayla M. DICKINSON, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.ZANESVILLE METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:12–CV–01024.

United States District Court,

S.D. Ohio,

Eastern Division.

Sept. 30, 2013.

Patrick W. Skilliter, Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, David A. Little, Zanesville, OH, Kristen Ann Finzel Lewis, New Philadelphia, OH, for Plaintiffs.

Mark Warren Stubbins, Zanesville, OH, Michael N. Beekhuizen, Carpenter & Lipps, LLP, Jeffrey Alan Lipps, Carpenter Lipps & Leland, LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

ALGENON L. MARBLEY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Zanesville Metropolitan Housing Authority and Steven Randles' (collectively, “ZMHA”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 22). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), ZMHA moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), on the grounds that it fails to state a claim, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and is barred by the statute of limitations. Also before the court is Defendants R.L.J. Management Company, Greenwood Homes, L.L.C., and Rita Paul's (collectively, “RLJ”) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 21). For the reasons stated below, both motions are hereby DENIED.

II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Plaintiff Dickinson filed her Complaint on behalf of herself and her minor children on November 6, 2012 (Doc. 1), against both ZMHA and its Executive Director, Steven Randles (“Randles”), as well as against R.L.J. Management Company, a property manager, its subsidiary, Greenwood Homes, L.L.C. (“Greenwood”), and its employee, Rita Paul (“Paul”). Plaintiffs alleged race and sex discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq. (“FHA”) against all Defendants, as well as breach of contract claims against ZMHA. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on January 23, 2013 (Doc. 17). Defendants ZMHA and Randles answered (Doc. 19), and filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on February 15, 2013 (Doc. 22). The RLJ Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2013 (Doc. 21). These motions have been fully briefed, and are ripe for review.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Kayla M. Dickinson is a disabled African–American mother of five children. ( Amended Complaint, Doc. 17, ¶ 17). Together with her minor children, Plaintiff was a resident at Coopermill Manor, a public housing complex operated by ZMHA, from November 23, 2005, until December 13, 2006. ( Id., ¶ 16). Plaintiff lived at Coopermill Manor under the terms of a written lease agreement signed on November 23, with a term of one year; a renewal agreement, also for a term of one year, was signed on September 29, 2006. ( Id., ¶ 17).

During her tenancy, Plaintiff suffered extensively from abusive conduct by the father of two of her children, Brandon Somers, who was not a resident at Coopermill Manor. ( Id., ¶¶ 18–20). At various times throughout 2005 and 2006, Somers would trespass at Plaintiff's home, physically abuse her, damage her property, threaten her, and disturb other residents. ( Id., ¶ 18). In particular, Somers appeared uninvited at Plaintiff's home and threatened her in December 2005 ( id., ¶ 21), physically abused her and demanded money from her in January 2006 ( id., ¶ 32), physically abused her and destroyed her property on October 17, 2006 ( id., ¶ 36), and assaulted and threatened her with a handgun on November 11, 2006 ( id., ¶ 45). On several of these instances, the Zanesville Police Department was notified ( see id., ¶¶ 36, 46–47), and ultimately Somers was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to one year in prison ( id., ¶ 48).

In response to each of these instances of violence, Plaintiff had various interactions with ZMHA security and management personnel. ZMHA security were slow to respond to Plaintiff's calls for help, with the result that she often had no protection against Somers' abuse, other than to call the police. ( Id., ¶¶ 24–25). Moreover, despite her attempts to explain the danger posed to her and her children by Somers, ZMHA employees attributed blame for the incidents to Plaintiff and merely advised her to “fix th[e] problem.” ( See e.g., id., ¶¶ 22, 34–35). ZMHA staff failed to investigate thoroughly the accuracy of complaints against Plaintiff lodged by other tenants, and created electronic records of the incidents in which they noted Plaintiff's culpability for the disturbances. ( Id., ¶ 28–31, 35).

As Somers' violence against Plaintiff escalated, ZMHA staff insisted that Plaintiff was at fault. After the October 17 incident, security personnel ordered Plaintiff to “settle down and stop being a bother,” and also issued her a warning. ( Id., ¶ 37). The same was noted in her electronic record. ( Id., ¶ 38). Plaintiff took whatever steps were available to her to prevent continued abuse by Somers, and also met with ZMHA's Housing Manager, Jerry Farson, to explain the situation, sometime in October 2006. ( Id., ¶¶ 39–40). Farson informed her that ZMHA would not protect her, and instead asked Plaintiff to move out of ZMHA housing. ( Id., ¶¶ 40–41). Farson threatened that ZMHA would evict Plaintiff if she did not elect to leave voluntarily. ( Id., ¶ 42). Fearful of losing all access to public housing, Plaintiff agreed to move out, in return for preferential placement on ZMHA's waitlist for Section 8 Housing vouchers. ( Id., ¶¶ 41, 44). Because such housing was not immediately available, however, Plaintiff continued to reside at Coopermill Manor. ( Id., ¶ 44).

As a result of the November 2006 incident, which ended in Somers' arrest, ZMHA staff ordered Plaintiff to keep Somers out of her unit, and accused her of letting Somers use the unit as a “party house.” ( Id., ¶ 49). In vain, Plaintiff attempted to explain that Somers was uninvited, and on each occasion had demanded entry and used violence to force his way inside. ( Id., ¶¶ 50–51). On November 11, 2006, ZMHA staff noted in Plaintiff's electronic record that Plaintiff responded to warnings by “cuss[ing] ... out” security staff “every time” they warned her. ( Id., ¶ 51). After these events, ZMHA rejected Plaintiff's next rent payment, and gave her a Notice of Termination of Lease, effective December 14, 2006. ( Id., ¶¶ 52–53). Plaintiff attempted to pay her rent three times in December 2006, but ZMHA rejected payment on each occasion. ( Id., ¶¶ 54–55).

Under threat of eviction, Plaintiff moved out of ZMHA housing on December 13, 2006. ( Id., ¶ 56). Unable to find Section 8 housing, Plaintiff resided with her parents for six weeks. ( Id., ¶¶ 57–58). After her departure, ZMHA staff inspected her unit, and reported the property to be in good condition, making no mention of any damage caused by Somers; nevertheless, ZMHA later informed Plaintiff that she would have to pay for repairs for damages by Somers, including specifically a broken window and damaged door, before they would issue her a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. ( Id., ¶¶ 59–60). Under protest, Plaintiff complied. ( Id., ¶ 60).

In summer 2009, while Plaintiff was a participant in the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program, Plaintiff sought to live at certain properties managed by Defendants RLJ, Greenwood, and Paul, including Zanesville Homes II and Greenwood Homes. Plaintiff applied to live at both complexes, and was denied. ( Id., ¶¶ 73–75). When Plaintiff first applied, she received no response for several months regarding her application; when she called to inquire, Paul told her that her application had been lost, and invited her to reapply. ( Id., ¶ 78). Again receiving no response after one month, Plaintiff called again, and Paul informed her that the application was denied. ( Id., ¶ 79). Plaintiff received no notice of the denial, and Paul again told her to reapply. ( Id.).

On November 17, 2009, Plaintiff applied once more. ( Id., ¶ 80). This time, Plaintiff was accompanied by Zanesville City Council Member Connie Norman. ( Id., ¶ 82). In late November, when Plaintiff inquired as to the status of this application, with Councilmember Norman on the phone, Paul denied that any application was pending. ( Id., ¶¶ 83–84). When Norman stated that she witnessed the application, Paul announced that the application had been denied, despite the fact that, once again, Plaintiff never received notice. ( Id., ¶ 85). Paul assured Plaintiff that she would investigate further, and contact Plaintiff, but never did so. ( Id., ¶¶ 85–86).

In early 2010, Plaintiff again inquired about her application for Greenwood Homes, and, in mid-April 2010, Paul stated the application was approved. ( Id., ¶¶ 88–89). But on April 27, 2010, Greenwood sent a notice to Plaintiff that the application was in fact denied, due to a “poor landlord reference.” ( Id., ¶ 90). At this time, Plaintiff was qualified to live at Greenwood, and units were available at that location. ( Id., ¶¶ 91–92). Plaintiff's attorney requested a copy of the reference on May 4, 2010. ( Id., ¶ 93). On May 7, 2010, Paul faxed a Landlord Reference Inquiry completed by ZMHA, dated May 7, in which ZMHA stated that Plaintiff had damaged her unit, created physical hazards to the property, menaced her neighbors, possessed weapons and drugs on the property, interfered with her neighbors' rights, and was thus evicted. ( Id., ¶¶ 94–96). ZMHA stated it would not rent to Plaintiff again. ( Id., ¶ 94). ZMHA also produced a summary of its electronic notes kept during Plaintiff's tenancy, which formed the basis for the negative reference letter. ( Id., ¶¶ 99–100).

In an attempt to clear her name, Plaintiff faxed Greenwood a letter and Certification of Domestic Violence (Form HUD–50066) on May 7, 2010, which advised Greenwood that Plaintiff was a victim of long-term domestic violence, including during her tenancy with ZMHA, and that Plaintiff had no control over Somers' actions. ( Id., ¶¶ 102–104). The letter included attachments to support her...