Shell v. Hollywood Housing Authority et al

Filing 59

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 4/7/2009. (bc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-61154-CIV-ZLOCH CARL SHELL, Plaintiff, FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL vs. TERESA VON SAAL, Defendant. / THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has

carefully reviewed the entire court file herein and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiff filed this action alleging retaliation in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. (2006). He was

formerly a recipient of voucher payments for housing assistance provided under the United States Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. Money was appropriated for this purpose by Act of Congress and awarded to local public housing authorities, who provided it to the recipients. The money was provided as a subsidy to Plaintiff's

rent with a private landlord and would continue as long as his lease continued and he complied with applicable regulations.

Plaintiff's landlord had the right to terminate the lease upon 60 days' notice that the rental unit must be vacated for renovations. DE 34, Ex. A, pp. 6-7. On April 29, 2004, the landlord gave him

the required notice that he would have to leave his unit because it was being renovated. DE 34, Ex. G. Plaintiff remained in the unit

past the lease termination date, and his landlord began eviction proceedings. The housing subsidy terminated based on the lease's

termination and also Plaintiff's violation of the lease by holding over. Plaintiff took his case through the internal agency review

process in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where it was dismissed based on a determination that no cause existed to find a violation of his rights had taken place. DE 34, Exs. C &

D. Plaintiff then embarked on a journey of litigation through both state and federal courts over this matter. See DE 14, pp. 4-7.

The cases closed at this time have all been dismissed for failing to state a cause of action or attempting to relitigate alreadydismissed cases. Plaintiff then filed this action alleging

violations of the Fair Housing Act. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The

United States Supreme Court has held that a complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or if fact." Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Neitzke v.

Factual frivolity means

"clearly baseless" on the facts, and legal frivolity means an "indisputably meritless" legal theory. question of frivolousness, a litigant's Id. at 327. history of "On the bringing

unmeritorious litigation can be considered."

Bilal v. Driver, 251 This is so

F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

because "[s]ection 1915 represents a balance between facilitating an indigent person's access to the courts and curbing the

potentially vast number of suits by such persons, who, unlike those who must pay in order to litigate their claims, have no economic

2

disincentives to filing frivolous or malicious suits once in forma pauperis status is granted." Herrick v. Collins, 914 F.2d 228, 229 (11th Cir. 1990). This action is frivolous. The Court notes that Plaintiff has

engaged in seemingly endless litigation against related parties all arising from the termination of his housing assistance benefits. See DE 14 and attached Exhibits. Thus, the subject matter herein

has been adjudicated previously numerous times all in favor of Plaintiff's opponents. By prior Order (DE 57), the Court noted

that this action against formerly dismissed Defendants Hollywood Housing Authority and Tim Schwartz was frivolous from its

inception. In addition, the Court previously dismissed this action against former Defendant Department of Housing and Urban DE 43.

Development because no right of action existed against it.

The sole remaining Defendant is a director of Hollywood Housing Authority and Plaintiff now seeks leave to proceed against additional directors. matter as actions These are the same parties and subject has filed and lost on numerous

Plaintiff

occasions in the past.

The Court finds that this action is 28

frivolous, Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1350, and must be dismissed. U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because the Court has determined that it is frivolous;

3

2. To the extent not otherwise disposed of herein, all pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 7th day of April, 2009.

WILLIAM J. ZLOCH United States District Judge Copies furnished: All Counsel of Record Carl Shell, pro se 2037 Madison Street, #16 Hollywood, FL 33020

4