Ali v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

1

YUSEF ABDULLAH BILAL ALI, Plaintiffs, v. LOUISVILLE METRO HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00463-CHB-RSE

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

December 12, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CLARIA HORN BOOM, JUDGE

Before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by pro se Plaintiff Yusef Abdullah Bilal Ali (“Plaintiff”). [R. 9]. In the motion, Plaintiff requests “a preliminary injunction that prevents Defendant Louisville Metro Housing Authority from initiating eviction proceedings and prevents Defendant Louisville Metro Housing Authority from otherwise evicting Plaintiff[.]” Pursuant to the Court's November 22, 2022 order, [R. 10] Defendants Louisville Metro Housing Authority (“LMHA”), Lisa Osanka, and Cecilia Kelly^[1](“Kelly”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed an expedited response opposing Plaintiff's Motion. [R. 15]. Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibit, [R. 17], and Motion to Supplement, [R 18]. This matter is ripe for review.^[2]

I. BACKGROUND

Since 2019, Plaintiff has resided in Louisville public housing managed by LMHA. [1-1, at p. 2]. In August 2020, Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with LMHA for occupancy of a one-bedroom apartment with a term of one-year. [R. 15-7, at p. 2]. In August 2021, Plaintiff renewed the least for another one-year term. Id. at p. 1, 13; R. 15-8]. On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff's emotional support dog was involved in a confrontation with another dog after which Plaintiff met with Kelly, the site manager, to discuss the incident. [R. 15-1, at p. 1]. Plaintiff explained that both dogs were off leash at the time, and Kelly informed Plaintiff that LMHA's policies required leashing animals at all times unless an accommodation had been granted. Id. Kelly provided Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation request form. Id.; [R. 9-1, at p. 28]. On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff submitted the completed form requesting an accommodation permitting him to allow his dog to be off leash “for training purposes during surgical recovery.” [R, 15-2, at p. 2]. Plaintiff advised a member of the office staff that he would not obtain a signature from his physician verifying the need for the accommodation. [9-1, at p. 27]. While discussion of the request was ongoing among Kelly and other members of LMHA management, on March 21, 2022, Kelly received a complaint from a pregnant resident who claimed that Plaintiff's dog ran into her “knocking her down causing her to have to seek medical attention.” Id. at 23. Another resident then confronted Plaintiff regarding the safety concerns posed by the off-leash dog. Id. at 16. The two engaged in “a few minutes of tense dialogue” before Plaintiff called the police, and an officer appeared on the scene. Id. Plaintiff requested to complete a police report documenting that the other resident threatened to shoot his dog, but the officer declined. Id. at 17.

On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff contacted Kelly “[r]equesting immediate emergency relocation to another ‘Scattered Site' Housing Unit due [t]o safety concerns for both my Emotional Support Animal and myself.” Id. at 16. Kelly forwarded Plaintiff's transfer request to LMHA's central office, which approved the request on March 30, 2022 and advised Plaintiff that his transfer date would depend on a waitlist for one-bedroom units. Id. at 14-15. On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff submitted another accommodation request form, this time seeking to qualify for a two-bedroom unit to circumvent the waitlist for one-bedroom units. Id. at 15-4. On April 11, 2022, Kelly contacted Plaintiff and advised that his accommodation request could not be approved without verification of medical need by his physician. [R. 15-5]. The following day, Plaintiff sent a letter addressed to LMHA staff stating, “I will be filing suit for relief in U.S. District [C]ourt in the days to come for the ongoing discrimination, harassment, retaliation and unsafe [li]ving conditions Mrs. Kelly has created for me and my Emotional Support Animal ....” Id. at p. 1. On April 29, 2022, LMHA's counsel sent Plaintiff a letter with the subject “Collaborative Process Regarding Request for Reasonable Accommodations.” [R. 15-6, at p. 1]. Regarding the request for an exemption from LMHA's leashing policy, counsel stated:

LMHA unfortunately cannot grant permission to keep your support animal off-leash on its property.

Your support animal has a documented history of aggressive behavior toward LMHA residents and staff as well as other animals. Allowing you to keep the animal off leash would violate local ordinance and pose an unacceptable risk of harm to others.

LMHA wants to work with you collaboratively to identify potential alternative accommodations to meet needs. If you are interested, please contact me to arrange a meeting or this purpose.

Id. at 2.

Regarding the request to transfer to one of the available two-bedroom units at another property, counsel stated: “LMHA could place you in a two-bedroom, single-family unit if you can provide a doctor's statement that it is necessary to accommodate your disability. In the absence of such information, however, LMHA can offer transfer to a one-bedroom unit only.” Id. According to Defendants, “Plaintiff did not respond to LMHA's request for a meeting, nor did he ever provide medical support for his request.” [R. 15, at p. 3].

Plaintiff's lease agreement with LMHA, provides that “[t]he resident agrees to furnish accurate information and certifications regarding family composition and income as may be necessary to make determinations with respect to rent, eligibility and appropriateness of dwelling size, on an annual basis or as requested by Management.” [R. 15-7, at p. 8]. LMHA sent Plaintiff a letter dated June 16, 2022 instructing him to complete and return several attached recertification forms and to appear for a recertification interview. [R. 9-1, at pp. 2-4]. In response to the letter, Plaintiff sent a “Notice to Cease and Desist” to LMHA's counsel in which Plaintiff stated that he received the letter from LMHA shortly after filing a complaint against LMHA to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). [R. 15-9, at p. 1]. Plaintiff asserted: “[LMHA] and its representatives are retaliating against complainant for ongoing complaints seeking an unlawful means of an illegal eviction in violation of both state and federal law.” Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff advised: “If this Activity continues I will immediately seek a temporary restraining order in the Western District Courts against you and any accomplices in this matter.” Id. at 2. On July 6, 2022, LMHA's counsel sent a letter responding to the cease and desist, stating:

You allege in your letter that LMHA is attempting to evict you from the above-listed dwelling unit in retaliation for a complaint you recently made to HUD about living conditions at your apartment complex. You may be assured that this is not the case.

LMHA is not trying to evict you or otherwise retaliate against you for any reason and only learned of your complaint to HUD when you disclosed the same in your above-referenced letter.

The public housing eligibility recertification packet that you received from LMHA on June 24, 2022 is part of the routine eligibility recertification process that all LMHA tenants must complete annually. It is the same recertification packet that all LMHA residents receive each year and is totally unrelated to your HUD complaint.

[R. 15-10, at p. 1].

According to Defendants, “Plaintiff did not respond to this letter, and he took no further action to schedule a recertification interview.” [R. 15, at p. 4]. On August 2, 2022, LMHA sent Plaintiff a second request for completed recertification documents. [R. 15-11]. On August 24, 2022, LMHA sent a “final notice” directing Plaintiff to complete the recertification process within seven days. [R. 15-12]. Plaintiff did not timely comply, and instead on September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action. [R. 1]. Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the final notice, on September 30, 2022, LMHA sent Plaintiff a letter labeled “30 Day Lease Termination Letter with ‘Right to Cure'”, which advised:

Your lease is being terminated on the grounds that you have not kept your required appointments in order to supply to management, any certification release, information, or documentation on family income or composition needed to process annual redetermination for rent.

...

In order to avoid the termination of your lease you must remedy the conditions of the violation described above within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter.

[R. 15-13, at p. 1].

On November 17, 2022, LMHA sent Plaintiff a notice again requesting that Plaintiff complete the required recertification process, and also offering to refer Plaintiff to an eviction diversion program. [R. 15-14]. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and instead, on November 21, 2022 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. [R. 9] On November 22, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order because “Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of sufficiently showing that irreparable harm will result if a temporary restraining order is not issued.” [R. 10, at p. 2]. In doing so, the Court noted, “Plaintiff's motion and the exhibits attached thereto establish that on November 17, 2022, Plaintiff was referred to Louisville Metro Housing Authority's Eviction Diversion Program.” Id. Consequently, the Court found that “[t]he record does not establish that Plaintiff faces an immediate threat of eviction.” Id. at 3. The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's request...