Samuel v. The Del. Cnty. Hous. Auth.

1

EARLANDO SAMUEL, Plaintiff, v. THE DELAWARE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, LAURA BLACKBURN, DAWN WARE, CHRISTINA PRO, INGERMAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, RASHIDA SMITH, RYANN WILLIAMS, NEFERTITI RIVERS, TERRI HARDIN, GREG WARD, and CATHERINE CUENY, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-2451

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

July 12, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

Plaintiff Earlando Samuel, proceeding pro se, intended to lease a two-bedroom apartment using a housing voucher administered by Defendant Delaware County Housing Authority (“DCHA”) in a building managed by Defendant Ingerman Property Management (“Ingerman”).^[1]He alleges that DCHA and four of its employees-Laura Blackburn, Dawn Ware, Christina Pro, and Catherine Cueny (collectively, “DCHA Defendants”), as well as Ingerman and five of its employees-Rashida Smith, Ryann Williams, Nefertiti Rivers Terri Hardin, and Greg Ward (collectively, “Ingerman Defendants”) engaged in a “bait-and-switch” scheme to trick him into leasing a one-bedroom apartment instead. He also alleges that after he moved in, Defendants harassed and retaliated against him. Samuel brings federal and state law claims alleging: (1) violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”); (2) violation of 24 C.F.R § 982.316, concerning the approval of live-in aides by public housing agencies; (3) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (4) violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”); (5) violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 2261A; (6) violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”); and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Samuel has filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c); the DCHA Defendants and the Ingerman Defendants have each filed Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, Samuel's Motion will be denied; DCHA Defendants' Motion will be granted in part and Ingerman Defendants' Motion will be granted in full.

I. BACKGROUND^[2]

Samuel is a 70-year-old black man who suffers from osteoporosis, degenerative joint disease, and a mild cognitive disorder. Due to his conditions, Samuel's primary physician advised him in 2012 that a live-in aide was “medically necessary”; Samuel requires housing with at least two bedrooms to accommodate the aide. Because of “medical determinations and psychological reports, diagnosis(s} [sic], prognosis(s) and treatment plans made by medical doctors, psychologists, therapists and the determination of ‘disability' by the Social Security Administration,” the Delaware State Housing Authority approved a two-bedroom housing voucher for Samuel in 2012. Samuel further either prefers or requires a first-floor apartment because stairs and inclines cause him “great pain and suffering lasting for days.”

In 2016, Samuel “ported,” or transferred, his voucher to the New Castle Housing Authority. Subsequently, the New Castle County Housing Authority issued Samuel a Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) for a two-bedroom apartment on October 4, 2019.

These vouchers enable the holder to:

choose[] a decent, safe and sanitary unit to live in. If the owner agrees to lease the unit to the family under the housing choice voucher program, and if the PHA [public housing agency] approves the unit, the PHA will enter into a housing assistance payments (HAP) contract with the owner to make monthly payments to the owner to help the family pay the rent.

After viewing an advertisement for an available two-bedroom apartment at the Ingerman Birchwood at Concord Point building stating that HCVs would be accepted, Samuel submitted an email application on February 21, 2019. He received a reply email on September 18 from Defendant Ryann Williams, the building's assistant property manager, inviting him to tour two-bedroom apartments at the property. Samuel alleges that this was the beginning of a duplicitous scheme by the DCHA and Ingerman Defendants to convert his HCV into a one-bedroom voucher and force him to move into an unsuitable second-story one-bedroom apartment.

Following her email, Williams called Samuel on October 28 to inform him he had been approved for a two-bedroom apartment. Samuel met with her at Ingerman's office the next day. While Williams and Samuel waited “for a nurse friend” of his to arrive, they discussed his experiences with housing vouchers. During that discussion, Williams told Samuel he “didn't look disabled.”

After completing a new application, Samuel asked to see the apartment. Williams told him it was unavailable for viewing, but offered to show him a one-bedroom unit on the first floor instead. At Williams' suggestion, they walked along an exercise trail on the development to view greenery surrounding the property. After walking approximately twenty feet, Samuel developed “aches and pain,” and told Williams and his friend to go on ahead. The group then viewed the first-floor unit, which Samuel told Williams “was workable in the 2 bedroom configuration.”

On November 5, Samuel had an intake appointment with Defendant Laura Blackburn, then Director of the DCHA, and Defendant Catherine Cueny, a DCHA Applications and Admissions Specialist. That same day, DCHA issued Samuel a new voucher. The voucher lists Blackburn as the authorizing DCHA official and is signed by Defendant Dawn Ware. Samuel's signature also appears on the voucher, which he alleges is a “fabrication.”^[3]The voucher bears a different identifying number than Samuel's original New Castle County HCV, but lists the same October 4, 2019 issue date. Unlike the New Castle County HCV, the voucher issued by DCHA entitles Samuel to a one-bedroom unit.

On November 27, 2019, Samuel met with Defendant Rashida Smith, an Ingerman Property Manager, to sign a lease. He realized after the fact that the lease was for a one-bedroom apartment on the second floor.

Although he moved into the apartment, Samuel continued to raise the issue of reinstating his two-bedroom voucher with DCHA employees. On August 8, 2021, he emailed Blackburn regarding a response received from Defendant Christina Pro, Samuel's DCHA caseworker, about his voucher and the availability of a live-in aide. In her email, Pro told Samuel:

[Although] you came into our Housing Authority with a 2-bedroom voucher DCHA's policy states you are only entitled to a 1 bedroom. Each Housing Authority has their own administration plan. Your unit is only 1 bedroom. If you decide to add a live-in aide and your voucher is increased to a 2 bedroom then you would need to move. We cannot pay for the payment standard for a 2 bedroom on a 1-bedroom unit.

She then sent him DCHA's live-in aide policy.

Samuel forwarded Pro's response to Blackburn. In his email, he informed her that he believed his two-bedroom voucher “was wrongfully taken” and asked for her assistance resolving the voucher issue. Blackburn advised Samuel that “if you require a live-in aid[e], you will need to provide documentation from a medical professional stating you need a live-in aide.” Information on the aide would then need to be submitted to DCHA for background checks. If the live-in aide met “all eligibility requirements,” Blackburn informed him that he would have to vacate his one-bedroom apartment for a new voucher to issue:

[Y]ou will need to read your lease and give proper notice to your landlord of your intent to vacate. We will need a letter from the owner stating you are currently in compliance (i.e., rent is up to date, no lease violations and proper notice was given.) Upon receipt of the clearance letter a two Bedroom Voucher will be issued. The above procedure is for all clients who ask to have a live-in aide, and or who wishes to move.

Samuel does not allege that he took these steps.

In response to his complaints about the downgrading of his voucher, the unsuitability of a second-floor apartment, and his need for a live-in aide, Samuel alleges the Ingerman Defendants and Pro undertook a “campaign of harassment and unfair treatment” against him after he moved in. Samuel objects to two one-off instances of conduct: first, on December 5, 2019, Williams “demanded” information about expenditures he made and convinced him to provide four bank statements, telling him he would be found in violation of his lease if he did not. Second, on April 1, 2020, Smith imposed a 10:30 pm television “curfew” on him after a neighbor made a noise complaint.

Samuel also objects to two categories of repeated conduct by various Defendants: (1) multiple entries into his apartment by Defendant Greg Ward, a maintenance manager for Ingerman, that were either unannounced or on short notice to perform “mandatory preinspections” or repairs, and (2) fluctuations in his rent that resulted, in some instances, in notices that he was delinquent on his rent. As to the first category, Samuel alleges Ward first entered his apartment unannounced on July 7, 2020. The day prior, Samuel had received a notice at approximately 5:20 pm informing him that a “mandatory pre-inspection” in advance of an inspection required by the Township would be performed “starting the next day.” Samuel was awoken the next morning at around 9:30 am by Ward, who had entered Samuel's apartment using a master key, “hollering.”^[4] Ward then returned two days later, again entering Samuel's apartment unannounced while he was asleep and this time providing no advance notice. Ward told Samuel he was there to replace the light in the oven, a claim Samuel was skeptical of as “[t]he oven was new when I moved into the unit and I may have used the light twice.” Samuel sent a letter to Smith complaining about these intrusions on July 15, 2020, to which she re...