Moore v. Dena Hunt & Milwaukee Cnty., Case No. 14-CV-1101-JPS

• Decision Date: 20 August 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-CV-1101-JPS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
• Parties: LYNETTE MOORE, Plaintiff, v. DENA HUNT and MILWAUKEE COUNTY, Defendants.

LYNETTE MOORE, Plaintiff, v. DENA HUNT and MILWAUKEE COUNTY, Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-1101-JPS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

August 20, 2015

ORDER

The plaintiff, Lynette Moore, alleges that her Section 8 housing benefits were terminated in violation of her rights under the Constitution and various federal statutes. (See Docket #8 ¶¶ 47-73). She has named two defendants: Milwaukee County ("the County"), which operates the Milwaukee County Housing Choice Voucher Program ("the Program") through the Milwaukee County Housing Authority ("MCHA"), and through which Ms. Moore received her housing benefits; and Dena Hunt, a County employee who manages the Program. (See, e.g., Docket #28 ¶¶ 9-10).

The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment (Docket #55, #60), and their motions are now fully briefed (Docket #56, #61, #72, #76, #77, #86). The Court, thus, turns to decide them.

1. BACKGROUND

The Court begins with some background discussion, first offering a summary of the Program and the system in which it operates, then discussing the specific facts of this case, and finally discussing Ms. Moore's specific claims.

1.1 The Program and the Section 8 System

The Seventh Circuit has provided a thorough overview of Section 8 housing voucher programs. See Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519, 523-24 (7th Cir.2010). Most of that overview applies to the Program operated by MCHA, which is specifically at issue in this case. See id. Thus, the Court—with some minor alterations to make the overview applicable to the Program—quotes the Seventh Circuit's overview at length:

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low-income families to enable them to participate in the private rental market. This program is administered by [the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")]. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o); 24 C.F.R. pt. 982. Although funded by the federal government, it is generally administered by state or local government entities known as public housing agencies (PHAs). 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(a). A PHA must comply with HUD regulations and other HUD requirements for the program. 24 C.F.R. § 982.52(a). Federal regulations require PHAs to adopt written administrative plans that establish local policies for administration of the program in accordance with HUD requirements. 24 C.F.R. § 982.54.

[The MCHA] is the local PHA that administers the Section 8 program for [Milwaukee, Wisconsin]....

Eligibility for the Section 8 housing voucher is determined by income. 24 C.F.R. § 982.201. Qualified participants pay a percentage of their income toward rent and utilities and receive subsidies for the balance of the rental payment. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. The participant's portion of the rent cannot exceed forty percent of his or her monthly adjusted income. 24 C.F.R. § 982.305(a). The subsidized portion of the rent is paid by the PHA to the rental property owner (the "person...with the legal right to lease...a unit to a participant" under the program, 24 C.F.R. § 982.4) pursuant to [a Housing Assistance Payment ("HAP")] contract. Once a PHA determines that a participant is eligible and that there is available space in the program, the PHA issues the participant a voucher and the participant can search for housing. 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.202, 982.302.

If a property owner agrees to lease a unit to a tenant under the program, he must enter into an HAP contract with the PHA. The HAP contract is prescribed by HUD and specifies the maximum monthly rent an owner may charge. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(1). Before the PHA enters into an HAP contract, the PHA must determine that the cost of the unit is reasonable and meets HUD's prescribed housing quality standards (HQS). 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(8); 24 C.F.R. § 982.305(a); 24 C.F.R. § 982.401. The HAP contract provides that it "shall be interpreted and implemented in accordance with HUD requirements, including the HUD program regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 982." HUD-52641, Part B (3/2000), ¶ 16(b). The Section 8 participant enters into a separate lease with the owner that must meet certain requirements pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7). For example, the lease must include the required tenancy addendum. 24 C.F.R. § 982.305(a). The housing must also be inspected annually to ensure that it continues to meet the HQS. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(8)(B)-(D). Tenants must also re-certify family income and composition annually to continue in the program. 24 C.F.R. § 982.516.

Khan, 630 F.3d at 523-24. To summarize, as best as the Court can:

(1) the MCHA, through the Program, administers the Section 8 benefits for the Milwaukee County area, on behalf of HUD and must comply with all HUD regulations and requirements;

(2) individuals who would like Section 8 benefits apply to the Program;

(3) once that individual is selected for participation in the Program—when the individual is eligible and there is available space—MCHA issues that individual a voucher;

(4) the individual—now a Program participant—then searches for housing;

(5) when the participant finds housing that the property owner is willing to rent to the participant, the property owner must enter two separate contracts:

(a) the lease with the participant; and

(b) the HAP contract with MCHA, which is "interpreted and implemented in accordance with" all HUD requirements and regulations;

(6) once those contracts are in place, the participant pays a portion of the rent for the unit directly to the owner and MCHA pays the remainder, also directly to the owner; and

(7) each year, MCHA must inspect the unit to ensure that it meets quality standards and the participant must re-certify his or her family income and composition.

Id.

1.2 Case-Specific Facts

Ms. Moore's interactions with MCHA, in the context of the system described above, form the basis for this lawsuit. And, while there are significant amounts of disputes between the parties as to the facts, there appear to be few material disputes.

Ms. Moore has received Section 8 housing assistance through the Program since 2002. (PPFF ¶ 10).¹ From 2008 until May of 2014, she lived at 4882 Dean Road in Brown Deer, Wisconsin ("the Dean Road property"). (PPFF ¶ 11). Lunsinga Msikinya owned the Dean Road property. (DPFF ¶ 14 (plaintiff disputes other portions of this proposed finding)). Thus, because Ms. Moore was a participant in the Program, she would pay Mr. Msikinya a small amount in rent and MCHA would pay Mr. Msikinya the remainder. (See PPFF ¶ 10; DPFF ¶ 16 (plaintiff disputes other portions of this proposedfinding)). For example, prior to February 5, 2014, Ms. Moore was obligated to pay Mr. Msikinya $25.00 per month, and MCHA would pay the remainder. (DPFF ¶ 16 (plaintiff disputes other portions of this proposed finding)).

On February 5, 2014, however, Ms. Moore's rent obligations changed substantially: as a result of a change in her family composition, see 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.505, 982.516, her rent contribution was increased to $413.00. (DPFF ¶ 16; Pl. Resp. to DPFF ¶ 16). Apparently, she failed to pay this increased amount when it came due on March 1, 2014. (See DPFF ¶ 18; Pl. Resp. to DPFF ¶ 18 (arguing that Ms. Moore was not required to pay this amount, "because Moore's rent obligation to her landlord at the Dean Road address for March, 2014, was only $25," but failing to support that contention or dispute the fact that Ms. Moore had not, in fact, paid the required $413.00)). Thus, Mr. Msikinya issued Ms. Moore a five-day notice for failure to pay the required $413.00. (DPFF ¶ 19; Pl. Resp. to DPFF ¶ 18). That notice required Ms. Moore to vacate the Dean Road property if she failed to pay the required $413.00. (DPFF ¶ 20 (plaintiff disputes only the date on which Ms. Moore would be required to vacate the premises)).

Ms. Moore did not pay that amount, so Mr. Msikinya filed an eviction action against her. (DPFF ¶ 49 (plaintiff disputes only the date that the judgment of eviction was entered)). Ms. Moore appeared at a May 22, 2014, hearing regarding her eviction. (Docket #66, Ex. 1 (Moore Depo.) 133:2-13). It appears that, at that hearing, she admitted to the presiding judge that she had not paid the rent and could not do so. (Docket #66, Ex. 1, 137:19-20 ("The first thing, if you got the money, I said no. So he granted it.")). So, the presiding judge issued a judgment of eviction against her. (DPFF ¶ 49 (plaintiff disputes only the date that the judgment of eviction was entered)).

Between the time that Mr. Msikinya issued the five-day notice and the entry of eviction, Ms. Moore and Mr. Msikinya were both in touch with Andy Collura, an MCHA employee who had primary responsibility for managing Ms. Moore's Section 8 benefits. (E.g., DPFF ¶¶ 21, 30). The parties largely dispute what the parties said in these conversations and the timeline of events that followed, but a few things are clear. First, through those conversations, Mr. Collura learned that Mr. Msikinya planned to terminate Ms. Moore's lease at the Dean Road property. (See, e.g., DPFF ¶¶ 25-27). Second, Mr. Collura was under the (potentially erroneous) assumption that, because Ms. Moore was required to leave the Dean Road property but presumably still wanted to participate in the Program, she would need a "moving packet"; thus, on April 18, 2014, Mr. Collura issued a moving packet, which included a voucher giving Ms. Moore until June 17, 2014, to locate housing. (See, e.g., PPFF ¶¶ 14-16; DPFF ¶ 39-43). Third, at some point (perhaps before, shortly after, or long after issuance of the moving packet), Mr. Collura informed Ms. Moore that the moving packet was available for her to pick up from the front desk of his office; he did not mail the packet to her and may not have explained the importance of the voucher included in the moving packet. (See, e.g., PPFF ¶¶ 14-16; DPFF ¶ 39-43; Pl. Resp. to DPFF ¶ 48).

Ms. Moore never picked up the moving packet or voucher; thus, the voucher expired on June 17, 2014, without Ms. Moore having...