Northern v. Pedcor Management Corp.

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #2 is DENIED, his motion for temporary restraining order #3 is DENIED, and his case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 5/9/2022. (Copy mailed to pro se party certified mail)(shk)(certified mail #7099 3400 0003 4516 4191 added) Modified on 5/9/2022 (jdb).

USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00120-PPS-JPK document 8 filed 05/09/22 page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
SHEDRICK NORTHERN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PEDCOR MANAGEMENT CORP.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:22CV120-PPS/JPK

OPINION AND ORDER
Shedrick Northern, a plaintiff acting without an attorney, has filed a complaint, a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for a temporary
restraining order. [DE 1, 2, 3.] Because Northern asks to file his case without payment
of the filing fee that is ordinarily required, his complaint is subject to a review on the
merits. Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that...(B) the action...(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” This standard requires dismissal if the complaint is
meritless, which includes a complaint which does not support the exercise of federal
jurisdiction. The only federal claim raised by Northern is under the Fair Housing Act.
But that claim has no possibility of succeeding, at least not as the case is presently
pleaded. And since the other claims are based on state law, and there is no allegation

USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00120-PPS-JPK document 8 filed 05/09/22 page 2 of 4

that the parties are diverse from one another, dismissal of the entire complaint without
prejudice is appropriate.
Based on the complaint, this appears to be a standard landlord-tenant dispute.
Mr. Northern sues Pedcor Management Corp., his landlord. Northern’s complaint
makes allegations about the unsatisfactory handling of water leaking into his apartment
from an upstairs neighbor’s unit. All four counts of the complaint are based on those
allegations. Count 1 is entitled “Breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.”[DE 1 at 6-7.] Count 2, which is ostensibly based on the Fair Housing Act, is
called “Breach of the right to a habitable home, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.” [Id.
at 7.] Count 3 is a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
Count 4 is a non-specific request for a declaratory judgment. [Id. at 8.]
There are no allegations of the citizenship of the parties that might support the
exercise of diversity jurisdiction. Instead, as noted, the complaint cites The Fair
Housing Act as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. [DE 1 at 2.] More
specifically, Northern cites two particular provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601, to
which he adds the description “breach of the right to a habitable home,” and 42 U.S.C.
§3617, which he describes as relating to “interference, coercion, or intimidation.” [Id.]
The Fair Housing Act contains provisions making it unlawful for a person to
discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or
national origin in the sale or rental of housing. 42 U.S.C. §3604; Valencia v. City of
Springfield, Illinois, 883 F.3d 959, 966 (7th Cir. 2018). Section 3601, to which Northern has

2

USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00120-PPS-JPK document 8 filed 05/09/22 page 3 of 4

cited, does not contain any language referencing a right to a habitable home, and
instead merely states that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to provide, within
constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.” The other
particular provision of the Act cited by Northern is §3617, which makes it “unlawful to
coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of,
or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, ...any right granted or protected by
section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.”
The Fair Housing Act is a discrimination law; it does not generally establish a
right to a “habitable home.” McDaniel v. VTT Management, Inc., 2018 WL 4494985, at *3
(W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2018) (an FHA retaliation claim based on allegations of “unfit
premises” without allegations of discrimination based on a protected class fails to state
a claim). As with other laws offering protections against discrimination, the Act
enumerates the categories of traits that cannot lawfully motivate adverse treatment in
housing matters. Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, 328 F.3d 532, 539 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003); Koorn
v. Lacey Township, 78 Fed.Appx. 199, 207 (3rd Cir. 2003); Housing Discrimination Under the
Fair Housing Act, U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development
(https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_o
verview#:~:text=What%20Is%20Prohibited%3F,-In%20the%20Sale%20and%20Rental).
Because Northern does not claim to belong to any of the protected categories of the Act,
nor claim that any such category was the basis for discrimination against him by

3

USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00120-PPS-JPK document 8 filed 05/09/22 page 4 of 4

defendant, his complaint does not state a viable claim under the Fair Housing Act.
Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 191 Fed.Appx. 446, 450 (7th Cir. 2006).
Because Northern’s claim under the Fair Housing Act does not present a
plausible right to relief, it must be dismissed, but the dismissal will be without
prejudice. And since the remaining claims appear to be based exclusively on state law
and the complaint contains no allegations that could support federal jurisdiction on the
basis of diversity of citizenship, the most prudent approach is to relinquish whatever
supplemental jurisdiction I may have had over those claims and dismiss those claims as
well without prejudice so that Northern may pursue them in state court. As a result,
Northern’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion for a temporary
restraining order will be DENIED.
ACCORDINGLY:
Because plaintiff Shedrick Northern’s complaint does not state a claim for relief
on the one federal claim alleged in the complaint, Northern’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is DENIED, his motion for temporary restraining
order [DE 3] is DENIED, and his case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The case is now CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 9, 2022.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4