Freeman v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 17 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–2424.,11–2424.
• Parties: Ricky FREEMAN and Brenda Faye Hunter, Plaintiffs, v. Laquita SULLIVAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

954 F.Supp.2d 730

Ricky FREEMAN and Brenda Faye Hunter, Plaintiffs,

v.Laquita SULLIVAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 11–2424.

United States District Court,

W.D. Tennessee,

Western Division.

June 17, 2013.

Ricky Freeman, West St. Paul, MN, pro se.

Brenda Faye Hunter, West St. Paul, MN, pro se.

Jimmy L. Croom, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jackson, TN, Harriett M. Halmon, David Brackstone, Asia Nicole Diggs, Ford & Harrison LLP, U.S. Attorney's Office, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., District Judge.

Before the Court are the October 1, 2012 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Regina Fisher (“Fisher”), Robert Lipscomb (“Lipscomb”), and LaQuita Sullivan (“Sullivan”) (collectively, the “MHA Defendants”); the November 29, 2012 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Lynn Grosso (“Grosso”), Gregory Bernard King (“King”), and Carlos Osegueda (“Osegueda”) (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”); and the April 10, 2013 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Memphis Housing Authority (“MHA”). (October 1 Motion, ECF No. 23); (November 29 Motion, ECF No. 33); (April 10 Motion, ECF No. 43–1.) Plaintiffs responded to the October 1 Motion on October 12, 2012; the November 29 Motion on December 10, 2012; and the April 10 Motion on April 19, 2013. (Resp. to Oct. 1 Motion, ECF No. 28); (Resp. to Nov. 29 Motion, ECF No. 34); (Resp. to April 10 Motion, ECF No. 44.) On April 24, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on the October 1 Motion (Report 1, ECF No. 45), the November 29 Motion (Report 2, ECF No. 46), and the April 10 Motion (Report 3, ECF No. 47.) Plaintiffs Ricky Freeman (“Freeman”) and Brenda Faye Hunter (“Hunter”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) objected on May 7, 2013. (Objections, ECF No. 48.)

In the Report on the October 1 Motion, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against the MHA Defendants. In the Report on the November 29 Motion, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against the Federal Defendants. In the Report on the April 10 Motion, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against MHA. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Reports on the October 1, November 29, and April 10 Motions and OVERRULES Plaintiffs' objections. The October 1, November 29, and April 10 Motions are GRANTED.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

A. Plaintiffs' Allegations

On May 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a pro se Complaint alleging housing discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.,§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and § 1437f of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (the “Housing Act”), as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. (Compl., ECF No. 8.) On February 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a pro se Amended Complaint. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 14.)

Plaintiffs are an unmarried couple who lived in Section 8 housing in St. Paul, Minnesota, before moving to Memphis, Tennessee. When Plaintiffs moved to Memphis on August 22, 2006, they immediately scheduled a meeting with representatives of MHA to review Freeman's Section 8 portability voucher, a document that facilitates the relocation of current Section 8 renters. Before the meeting, Plaintiffs rented at the New Horizon Apartments in Memphis and paid their own expenses.

Freeman and Hunter make individual and joint allegations. Plaintiffs' joint allegations address their September 7, 2006 meeting with Sullivan and Fisher, who are employees of MHA. At the September 7 meeting, the discussion included Plaintiffs' request to cohabitate, the required paperwork for rent subsidization, and a request to install a “grab bar” in Freeman's apartment. Freeman requested a “grab bar” to accommodate his scoliosis. Lipscomb, the Executive Director of MHA, was not at the meeting.

Portions of Freeman's application for a Section 8 voucher were allegedly denied, delayed, or ignored. Plaintiffs' request to cohabitate was denied because Freeman and Hunter were not married. Plaintiffs' paperwork for rent subsidization was allegedly delayed five months, which required them to pay temporarily inflated rent. Sullivan and Fisher allegedly took no action on Plaintiffs' request for a “grab bar.” Plaintiffs also allege that, during the September 7 meeting, they were subjected to demeaning remarks and actions by Sullivan and Fisher, including remarks about Plaintiffs' relationship status.

Individually, Freeman alleges that Sullivan: (1) failed to allow Freeman to apply for housing with Hunter; (2) delayed processing Freeman's paperwork for five months; and (3) failed to approve the installation of a “grab bar” in Freeman's apartment bathroom. Freeman alleges that Fisher and Lipscomb delayed the paperwork for five months and failed to install reasonable accommodations to his apartment. Individually, Hunter alleges that Sullivan made demeaning and disparaging remarks during the September 7 meeting.

B. The October 1 Motion

The MHA Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims as insufficiently pled and Hunter's claim for lack of standing. According to the MHA Defendants, Plaintiffs' claims are devoid of factual support and fail as a matter of law. The MHA Defendants also seek dismissal based on qualified immunity because Plaintiffs sued them in their official capacities. The MHA Defendants argue that Hunter lacks standing because she seeks to assert Freeman's rights under the Section 8 portability documents, and the Constitution requires litigants to suffer an injury-in-fact. On October 12, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a response, in which they reiterate the allegations in the Amended Complaint. (Pls.' Resp. to Oct. 1 Mot., ECF No. 28.)

In recommending that Plaintiffs' claims against the MHA Defendants be dismissed, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Hunter lacked standing because she failed to allege an injury-in-fact given that the Section 8 voucher was Freeman's. (Report 110–11.) Considering the denial of Freeman's request to cohabitate, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Freeman failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because a public housing authority may “prohibit two adults without children from sharing one applicant's public housing.” ( Id. 12–13) (emphasis in original). The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Freeman's claims based on delayed paperwork and failure to install a “grab bar” were insufficiently pled. ( Id. 13–14.) Freeman's allegations failed to establish that delayed paperwork violated his legal rights or that the MHA Defendants had the authority to install a “grab bar.” ( Id.)

C. The November 29 Motion

The Federal Defendants, who are employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), seek dismissal based on sovereign immunity. The Federal Defendants are sued in their official capacities. They argue that, because the United States is immune to suit absent consent, and because Plaintiffs fail to allege that the United States consented, their claims are foreclosed as a matter of law.

In recommending that Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed, the Magistrate Judge concluded that sovereign immunity applied. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that, because the Amended Complaint “does not specify the legal basis for their claims against the Federal Defendants,” Plaintiffs “cannot bear the burden of identifying any Congressional waiver in the statute of sovereign immunity.” (Report 29.) Absent allegations of Congressional waiver, Plaintiffs' claims failed as a matter of law.

D. The April 10 Motion

MHA seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint because Freeman's claims are insufficiently pled and because Hunter lacks standing. MHA argues that Freeman's claims are devoid of factual support and fail as a matter of law. MHA argues that Hunter lacks standing because she seeks to assert Freeman's rights under the Section 8 portability documents, and the Constitution requires litigants to suffer an injury-in-fact.

In recommending that Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Hunter lacked standing. She “has not pled any injury-in-fact that she has suffered. [because] the Amended Complaint has not alleged that she has been denied any of her rights to government-subsidized housing.” (Report 310.) The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the alleged humiliation suffered by Hunter was not an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish standing. ( Id. 11.)

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Freeman's claims because, although the public housing authority in Minnesota allowed Plaintiffs to cohabitate, there is no “authority that a public housing authority may not prohibit two adults without children from sharing one applicant's public housing.” ( Id. 12.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Freeman's claim based on delays in processing his paperwork and the failure to install a “grab bar” to accommodate his disability because they were insufficiently pled. ( Id. 13.) Freeman's allegations failed to establish that delayed paperwork violated his legal rights or that the Federal Defendants had the authority to install a “grab bar.” ( Id.)

II. Jurisdiction

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffsraise a federal question under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.,§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and § 1437f of the Housing Act, as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f.

III. Standard of Review

A. Motion to Dismiss

In addressing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepts all well-pled factual allegations as true. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir.2007). A...