Honkala v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.

1

CHERI HONKALA et. al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al.

Civil Action No. 21-0684

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

January 31, 2022

MEMORANDUM

GERALD AUSTIN MCHUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case starkly illustrates the limitations of civil litigation as a means to address critical social ills. Plaintiffs include several persons suffering from homelessness who occupied a vacant property owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. They did so on the advice of a community activist Cheri Honkala and the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, as part of a series of “takeovers” of properties they believed should be used for low-income housing. The Philadelphia Housing Authority posted a notice of eviction at the property, which prompted Plaintiffs' lawsuit against it and other federal and local authorities. Those entities now move to dismiss, contending that Plaintiffs fail to state legally cognizable claims.

As a means of focusing attention on governmental failure to make effective use of assets available to reduce homelessness this action succeeds. And if principles of natural law provided the controlling standard, Plaintiffs would have a compelling moral argument: “In cases of need, all things are common property, so there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2 Question 66, Article 7. But civil law is not designed to answer such ultimate moral questions. It focuses instead on specific rights and remedies conferred by statute or common law. When analyzed within that far more limited framework, the novel theories of recovery advanced by Plaintiffs are unsupportable. I am therefore compelled to dismiss the case.

I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises out of a homelessness crisis that is rampant and escalating in Philadelphia and across the United States. In the United States, chronic homelessness increased by 15% between 2019 and 2020.^[1] The 2019 Philadelphia Office of Homeless Services' Point-In-Time (PIT) count describes the number of chronically homeless people in Philadelphia as having “increased dramatically.”^[2] In 2018, the total number of people experiencing homelessness in Philadelphia was 5, 788.^[3] Of those 5, 788 individuals, 4, 364 individuals were Black Philadelphians. Id. Between 2019 and 2020, people identifying as African American accounted for 39 percent of people experiencing homelessness generally and 53 percent of people experiencing homelessness in family units, despite representing only 13 percent of the total U.S. population.^[4]

Although the full effect of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot yet be measured and is still ongoing, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, (NLHC), a respected nonprofit organization, job losses from the pandemic have exacerbated housing insecurity among low- income renters and contributed to the homelessness crisis.^[5] Not surprisingly, those without basic shelter may be at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19.^[6]

As noted by Plaintiffs, while the COVID-19 pandemic was spreading, hundreds of activists and people experiencing homelessness occupied encampments at various sites in Philadelphia, calling for permanent and fair housing. SAC ¶¶21-29. Those encampments became the subject of litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Murray et. al v. City of Philadelphia, et. al., 481 F.Supp.3d 461 (E.D. Pa. 2020), in which plaintiffs experiencing homelessness sought to bar the Defendant City of Philadelphia from disbanding the encampments. Judge Eduardo Robreno issued a decision denying motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, but in doing so underscored the seriousness of the problem. “The task of finding if not a solution at least some relief to this [homelessness] crisis rests squarely on the shoulders of the City's elected officials. It is an enormous challenge. But further indecision and neglect will only make it worse.” Id. at 466; SAC ¶26.

In the midst of this housing and public health crisis, adult Plaintiff Yesenia Cruz, her three minor children, E.R, E.C. and I.R, alongside adult Plaintiffs Zion Chick and Aaliyah Crouch were unhoused. Plaintiffs had been without regular and secure housing for the prior eight years, because of - among other reasons - periodic unemployment and “endemic stagnancy” on Philadelphia's waiting list for public housing, which has been closed since 2013.^[7] SAC ¶48. Plaintiffs plead that they were unable to reside in shelters because of age and location requirements which would have required Plaintiff Yesenia Cruz to be separated from her minor children, including her three-year old grandson. SAC ¶49. All Plaintiffs are Latino or African American. SAC ¶¶3-5.

In their search for housing, Plaintiffs sought help from Cheri Honkala, a community activist, and the nonprofit she operates, Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign (“PPEHRC”). Id. ¶51. The organization's stated mission is to “improve the public health, housing conditions and economic rights of poor people in Philadelphia.” Id. ¶¶1-2.

In August 2020, Cheri Honkala and PPEHRC “procured” 2736 N. Howard Street, Philadelphia, PA 19133 for Plaintiffs to live in. Id. ¶46. The property is legally owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority (“PHA”) and is held in trust for the benefit of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pursuant to a Declaration of Trust recorded in Philadelphia.^[8] Id. ¶¶3-8, 44-46; see PHA and HUD Declaration of Trust, recorded on or around August 30, 2012, Defendant PHA's Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1, ECF 33. But at the time, the property was vacant, and pursuant to Ms. Honkala's advice, Plaintiffs occupied the property without permission from PHA or HUD. SAC ¶43. Ms. Honkala describes the property as a “takeover house[]” and admits that 2376 N. Howard Street was not the only property that she procured for individuals experiencing homelessness. She helped such individuals move into “takeover houses, ” id. ¶58 n. 22, which Plaintiffs assert had been “abandoned and neglected by the federal government”^[9] and were “suitable for the purposes of providing shelter to ... individuals and families, during the clear and present public health and housing crises presented by the Covid-19 pandemic.” Id. ¶43. Plaintiffs Honkala and PPEHRC allege that they “provided the resources and/or labor to rehabilitate” 2376 N. Howard Street and other properties so that they would be “fit for human habitation.” Id. ¶46.

On February 8, 2021, Defendant PHA posted “Notice to Vacate” on 2736 N. Howard Street, ordering Plaintiffs to vacate the property. Id. ¶53. According to the Notice to Vacate, the property was “marked for rehabilitation because it is not safe for occupancy, ” and Plaintiffs were informed that a maintenance crew would return in 72 hours to evict the individuals. SAC, Ex. A. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they either left the property or were forced to leave it because of this eviction notice. But they allege that the posting of the notice has caused them to suffer from anxiety, depression, mental health ailments, and/or disabilities or disorders for which they lack care. Id. ¶59.

In addition to facing the threat of eviction, Plaintiffs allege that beneficiaries of Cheri Honkala and PPEHRC's work “such as Plaintiff(s) and the minor Plaintiff(s) herein, have been threatened by Defendant(s) with (or actually have been) subjected to the forced separation of their families” when the Philadelphia Police Department, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services, the Sheriffs Office of Philadelphia, and/or the First Judicial District of Philadelphia placed minors in foster care. Id. ¶57. It is unclear as pleaded whether plaintiffs themselves were threatened or subjected to the forced separation of their families, or whether the allegations refer generally to beneficiaries of Ms. Honkala and PPEHRC's work. Plaintiffs do not specify when they were purportedly threatened by Defendant(s) nor do they specifically allege that the Plaintiff minor children were in fact ever separated from their caregivers.

Ms. Honkala originally filed this lawsuit pro se and on behalf of PPEHRC and the individual Plaintiffs on February 2, 2021. ECF 1. After obtaining counsel, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 29, 2021, ECF 13, and a Second Amended Complaint on September 27, 2021. ECF 31. The Second Amended Complaint alleges various causes of action against the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA), the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (FJD), and federal defendants including U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Marica Fudge, Secretary of HUD; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”); and Xavier Becerra, Secretary of HHS. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief establishing that the individual Plaintiffs may remain lawfully 2736 N. Howard Street, an injunction permanently enjoining Defendants from evicting Plaintiffs from the property, a declaration that all unutilized and underutilized federal public buildings and real property be used for purposes of ameliorating the homelessness crisis in Philadelphia, and an award of compensatory and punitive damages to fund a Conservator to rehabilitate the Property.

II. Standard of Review

Motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are governed by the well-established standard set forth in Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).^[10]

III. Discussion

The Complaint is scattershot, often lacking in precision, and alleges liability based on several unrelated statutes and purported violations of...