Newell v. Rolling Hills Apartments
| Decision Date | 15 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. C 01-3025-MWB.,C 01-3025-MWB. |
| Citation | 134 F.Supp.2d 1026 |
| Parties | Shannon NEWELL, Plaintiff, v. ROLLING HILLS APARTMENTS; ACN-Fort Dodge Partners, L.P.; ACN-Fort Dodge Partners II, L.P., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Blake Porter, Blake Porter Law Office, Fort Dodge, IA, for plaintiff.
Mark Thomas, Grefe & Sidney, Des Moines, IA, for defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1027
A. Factual Background ................................................. 1027
B. Procedural Background .............................................. 1029
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................ 1031
A. Jurisdictional Doctrines ........................................... 1032
B. Younger Abstention ................................................. 1034
1. The doctrine and the rationale .................................. 1034
2. Requirements for abstention ..................................... 1035
a. Ongoing state judicial proceedings ........................... 1035
b. Important state interests .................................... 1036
c. Adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges ...... 1036
i. Iowa law ................................................ 1037
ii. Other states ............................................ 1038
d. "Exceptional circumstances" .................................. 1039
3. Other federal precedent ......................................... 1039
4. Summary ......................................................... 1039
C. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine ............................................ 1040
III. CONCLUSION ............................................................ 1041
Can (or should) this court hear the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to restrain or enjoin the defendants from evicting the plaintiff and her five-month-old biracial child from her federally subsidized housing on the ground that her eviction is racially discriminatory? Although the plaintiff placed only the merits of preliminary injunctive relief before this court, the court sua sponte raised the question of its jurisdiction to hear this matter in light of pre-existing state court eviction proceedings. Because this federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), it must be satisfied that the threshold requirement of subject matter jurisdiction has been satisfied.
The factual background for the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is necessarily drawn from the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and accompanying affidavit. Plaintiff Shannon Newell, a single parent, resides with her five-month-old biracial child at the Rolling Hills apartment complex in Fort Dodge, Iowa.1 Newell receives a "Section 8" HUD housing subsidy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, based on financial need, which pays all but $30 of her monthly rent at Rolling Hills. Newell's daughter was born shortly after she moved into her apartment at Rolling Hills.
Since the birth of her daughter, Newell contends that she has been subjected to an attempt by the management of Rolling Hills to have her evicted, which she alleges is motivated by the facts that her child is biracial and that she is visited at her apartment by friends who are African-American. This attempt to evict her for racially discriminatory reasons, Newell asserts, consists of the following:
A. [Newell] received her first Notice of Non-compliance [with her lease] when she complained of neighboring noise. Immediately thereafter she was served with a notice concerning noise, when in fact no one other than she and her child had been at the apartment. This notice was also concerning a bag of garbage which the plaintiff had set outside, and then went to find someone to be with her baby while she took the garbage out. The garbage sack would have been unattended for less than ten minutes.
B. The current notice concerning garbage is done only in an attempt to evict the plaintiff, and is not the real reason. There are tenants that leave garbage unattended for days at a time without apparently receiving evictions. This notice is based on visits to the plaintiff's apartment by African Americans.
Complaint, ¶ 13. As to the second occasion on which Newell received a notice concerning garbage, Newell explains,
The sacks which are questioned in the [second] notice were not placed outside by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a difficult [time] handling the garbage due to either caring for her child in her apartment, or having to carry her child with her. She has enlisted the assistance of friends to handle the garbage. On the occasion mentioned in the [second] Notice ... a friend may have, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, disposed of the garbage inappropriately. Such is not a material noncompliance with the landlord-tenant agreement.
Complaint, ¶ 14. Newell alleges that, if she is evicted, she will have no place to live and will be unable to receive "Section 8" housing assistance for at least one year. Complaint, ¶¶ 18-19.
In an affidavit in support of her motion for injunctive relief, Newell essentially repeats the allegations in her Complaint. However, she also attached to her affidavit the latter of the two notices from Rolling Hills that she contends were motivated by racial animus. The second notice is denominated a "7 Day Notice of Recurring Noncompliance," and is dated February 20, 2001. See Affidavit In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction (Newell Affidavit), Unnumbered Exhibit 1. This notice asserts that Newell has failed, for the second time, to dispose of trash "in a manner consistent [sic] with our community policies," and states, "This is notice that your tenancy terminates 7 days from now on the date of 2-27-01." Id. (emphasis in the original). The notice further warns, "If you have not vacated and/or have not returned the keys, we will consider that you are still in possession, and we will proceed with the EVICTION process by serving a `3 Day Notice to Quit.'" Id. The notice is signed by Tony Jacobsen, Property Manager, Rolling Hills Apartments.
The record does not include any "3 Day Notice to Quit." However, Newell also attached to her affidavit an Original Notice she received of a forcible entry and detainer action in Iowa District Court for Webster County. See id., Unnumbered Exhibit 2. This Original Notice, with an unreadable file stamp, bears another stamp indicating "RULE COPY HEREOF MAILED OR DELIVERED TO 2 Sheriff deft ON 3-1-01,"2 with the initials of a deputy in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of Webster County, Iowa. Id. (). The Original Notice informed Newell that possession of her apartment is demanded on the basis of "repeated violation of community policies and the lease." Id. It also notified Newell that, unless she appeared for a hearing in state court at 9:45 a.m. on March 8, 2001, judgment would be rendered against her for possession of her apartment at Rolling Hills and for court costs. Id.
Newell, through counsel, initiated the present federal action by filing an Application For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a supporting affidavit, which were mailed to the court on March 7, 2001, and received and filed by the Clerk of Court on March 9, 2001. The court granted Newell leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and Newell's Complaint, Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction, and affidavit in support of the motion for injunctive relief were all filed March 9, 2001. The Complaint, generally, seeks injunctive relief pending eviction, and legal relief for discrimination pursuant to the Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Newell's civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Complaint, ¶ 1. The defendants in this action are identified as Rolling Hills, an apartment complex in Fort Dodge, Iowa, and ACN-Fort Dodge Partners, L.P., and ACN-Fort Dodge Partners II, L.P., one or both of which are alleged to be the owners of Rolling Hills apartments (collectively, "Rolling Hills"). Id. at ¶ 6.
The principal factual allegations of the Complaint were outlined above. These allegations, Newell contends, give rise to the following causes of action. First, in Count I, Newell alleges that Rolling Hills "discriminated against the plaintiff in the terms, conditions and privileges in the rental of her dwelling based on the race and/or color of her child and acquaintances," causing her to suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages. Complaint, ¶¶ 21-22. This count seeks injunctive relief enjoining Rolling Hills from evicting Newell. Count II alleges that Rolling Hills acted under color of state law when it sent Newell the Notice of Recurring Noncompliance, that Rolling Hills violated and is continuing to violate Newell's constitutional right of association with her friends and her child by denying her the right to choose whom she sees at her dwelling unit, and alleges that Rolling Hills' conduct has caused Newell to suffer and to continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages "in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983." Id. at ¶¶ 25-27. This count also prays that Rolling Hills be enjoined from evicting Newell. Id. at ¶ 28. In a separate Prayer for Relief, the Complaint specifically prays that the court do the following: declare that the acts and practices of Rolling Hills alleged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ebiza, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 3:06-cv-00039-JEG.
...stay of Plaintiffs' equitable and monetary claims is therefore required. See Stroud, 179 F.3d at 603-04; Newell v. Rolling Hills Apartments, 134 F.Supp.2d 1026, 1039-40 (N.D.Iowa 2001). C. In light of the state and municipal procedures available to, and being pursued by, Plaintiffs, the str......
-
Grimm v. Borough of Norristown
...appeals but also more indirect attempts by federal plaintiffs to undermine state court decisions." Newell v. Rolling Hills Apartments, 134 F.Supp.2d 1026, 1033 (N.D.Iowa 2001). Indeed, federal district courts also lack jurisdiction over any constitutional claims that are "inextricably inter......
-
Josephinium Associates v. Kahli
...Northcraft v. Blumauer, 53 Wash. 243, 101 P. 871 (1909) (same—part performance of an oral lease). 26. See Newell v. Rolling Hills Apartments, 134 F.Supp.2d 1026, 1038 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (collecting and summarizing cases; holding defense applies in Iowa); Ansonia Acquisition I. LLC v. Francis, ......
-
K&D Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Masten, 98894
...(tenant complained about landlord's failure to repair and maintain premises in a safe manner). 5. See Newell v. Rolling Hills Apts., 134 F.Supp.2d 1026, *1038 (C.D.Iowa 2001) ("It appears that the majority of states to consider the question recognize that the landlord's discriminatory condu......