Angalet v. Housing Authority of Ashland et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: re 1 Emergency Petition and Complaint: (1) Upon being served with process, the named defendants are required to respond to Angalet's claims that he, as a disabled person, has been the victim of unlawful discrimina tion, in violation of federal law. (2) Angalet's claims for injunctive relief from the Judgment of the Boyd District Court entered on September 20, 2013, authorizing the eviction from his apartment, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure t o state a claim for which any relief can be granted by this Court. Angalet is free to refile these same claims for injunctive relief in state court. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr. on 9/26/2013.(CMR)cc: COR; Dana Blinky Angalet via hand deli very as he called during entry of this Order and stated he was coming to obtain a copy; Copies via U.S. Mail to: Housing Authority of Ashland, Gray Woods & Cooper, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, US Attorney General and US Attorney ED/KY.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND

DANA BLINKY ANGALET,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)
)

V.

Civil Action No. 13-CV-146-HRW

)

)
)

HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF ASHLAND, et aI.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

)
)

Defendants.

****

****

****

****

Dana Blinky Angalet is a resident of Ashland, Kentucky. Proceeding without
counsel, Angalet has filed an Emergency Petition and Complaint, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1981, against defendants Housing Authority of Ashland (hereinafter
"HAA"); Gray, Woods & Cooper; and United States Department ofHousing & Urban
Development, alleging that defendant HAA, a federally funded public housing
facility, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437, et seq., has unlawfully discriminated
against him, a disabled person. Angalet also requests an order of stay, restraint, and
injunctive relief from an Order of the Boyd District Court entered on September 20,
2013. [R. 1]

The Court must conduct a preliminary review of Angalet's complaint because
he has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis and because he asserts
claims against government officials. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. A district
court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,607-08 (6th Cir.
1997). The Court evaluates Angalet's complaint under a more lenient standard
because he is not represented by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569,573 (6th Cir. 2003). At this stage, the Court
accepts Angalet's factual allegations as true and liberally construes his legal claims
in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
Having reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that summonses must be
issued to the defendants and that the defendants are required to respond to the federal
claims ofunlawful discrimination raised in the Complaint. However, for the reasons
stated below, Angalet's request for injunctive relief will be denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Angalet states that he is a disabled person and that for the past fourteen
(14) years, he has resided at Scope Towers, 3131 Winchester Avenue, Apt. 905,
Ashland, Kentucky. Plaintiff states that Scope Towers is federally funded, public
2

housing. Plaintiff states that in June of 2013, due to medical issues related to his
diabetes, he experienced confusion, resulting in his exhibiting strange behavior.
Plaintiff claims that as a consequence of his strange behavior, Mr. Rick L. Young,
Executive Director of the HAA, set about to evict him from his apartment in Scope
Towers. More particularly, Plaintiff states that on July 22, 2013, he received a Notice
to Terminate Lease and a Notice to Vacate, issued pursuant to Kentucky law,
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 383, and the Code of Federal Regulations, 24
C.F.R.966.58.
The efforts of HAA to terminate Angalet's lease and to evict him from his
apartment resulted in an action being filed in Boyd District Court identified as

Housing Authority ofAshland v. Dana G. Angalet, Civil Action No. 13-C-00490.
This matter culminated in a bench trial conducted on September 19, 2013, with both
parties presenting evidence in support of their respective positions. On September
20,2013, the Boyd District Court entered its Findin~s
&

Jud~ment,

ofFact~

Conclusions of Law,

ruling in favor of petitioner HAA, concluding that HAA's notice of

lease termination conformed to the parties' lease and constituted sufficient notice of
lease termination. [R. 1-3, p. 2] The Boyd District Court also entered the following
Judgment:

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
Respondent is guilty of a forcible detainer of the Petitioner's premises
located at 3131 Winchester Avenue, Apartment #905, Ashland,
Kentucky, and that restitution of said premises shall be made to the
Petitioner, and the Respondent is hereby Ordered to vacate said property
by 2:00 p.m. on September 27, 2013, and that Petitioner recover from
the Respondent all costs herein expended in the amount of $95.50, and
attorneys' fees in the amount of$5,971.40, as provided for by the terms
of the lease between the parties.
ITIS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuantto KRS 383.275 that
the Respondent is restrained from destruction or waste of the subject
premIses.
This is a final and appealable judgment and there is no just cause
for delay.
Id.

THE COMPLAINT

Angalet states that he is a legally blind, disabled person and that in course of
his being evicted from his apartment in a federally-funded public housing facility, the
defendants have unlawfully discriminated against him and that the defendants have
engaged in other unspecified white collar crime. However, Angalet seeks no specific
relief from the defendants for his claimed violations of federal law.
Angalet states that in filing this Complaint, he is not attempting to re-litigate
the state court case in Boyd District Court. He acknowledges that that case has
concluded. Nevertheless, Angalet requests this Court to intervene in the state court
case and stay the Boyd District Court's judgment entered on September 20, 2013,

4

ruling that Angalet had violated the terms ofhis lease, that HAA properly terminated
Angalet's lease, and that HAA was entitled to evict Angalet from his apartment.
Angalet also requests this Court to enter a permanent restraining order enjoining the
Defendants from a negative or otherwise derogatory reference about him to any
prospective landlord. Additionally, Angalet also states that he needs access to a
landline telephone; he appears to request that the defendants be ordered to provide
him with such.
ANALYSIS

At this juncture, Angalet is entitled to proceed with his federal claims of
unlawful discrimination against the defendants. To the extent of those claims, the
defendants will be required to respond to Angalet's Complaint.
As to Angalet's request for this Court to stay the judgment ofthe Boyd District
Court evicting him from his apartment, for entry ofa permanent restraining order, and
other relief relative to that judgment, Angalet apparently misunderstands the role of
this Court. To the extent that he wishes to challenge any aspect of his eviction
proceedings in state court, he is advised that a civil action such as this is barred by

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (directing abstention by the federal courts if
matters are pending in a state proceeding as a matter of comity between state and
federal courts). Although the HAA prevailed in its state court petition to evict
5

Angalet from his apartment, that decision is not yet final, since the time in which
Angalet has to file an appeal from that decision in Boyd Circuit Court has not
expired.
However, since the case is no longer pending, as such, and has been resolved
to extent ofthe Boyd District Court's involvement therein, Angalet is further advised
that his claim for injunctive relief from that judgment in this Court is also barred
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This doctrine, described as "a combination of
the abstention and res judicata doctrines, stands for the proposition that a federal
district court may not hear an appeal ofa case already litigated in state court. A party
raising a federal question must appeal a state court decision through the state system
and then directly to the Supreme Court ofthe United States." United States v. Owens,
54 F.3d 271, 274 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing District of Columbia Court ofAppeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413
(1923)); Patmon v. Michigan Supreme Court, 224 F.3d 504, 506-07 (6th Cir. 2000).
However displeased Angalet is with rulings made by the Boyd District Court
in entering a judgment in favor of the HAA authorizing the eviction from his
apartment, or with any other aspect of the administration or processing of that case,
he can obtain no relief on that matter from this Court. Instead, he must seek relief
from the trial court's final decision on that case through the Kentucky state courts,
6

and then, if necessary, file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of
the United States. Since Angalet is challenging a state court decision that was entered
on September 20, 2013, it is clear that he has not appealed this matter through the
Kentucky state courts. His first step would be to file an appeal in the Boyd Circuit
Court. In that appeal, Angalet could request injunctive relief from the Boyd Circuit
Court, including a stay of the jUdgment authorizing the eviction from his apartment
on September 27,2013. Ifnot satisfied with that decision, Angalet could then seek
relief from the Kentucky Court of Appeals and then the Kentucky Supreme Court, if
necessary, until his state court remedies are exhausted, and then seek relief from the
United States Supreme Court.
In a nutshell, Angalet's Complaint, to the extent of his request for injunctive
relief from the state court judgment, must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim
for which any relief can be granted by this Court.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1.

Upon being served with process, the named defendants are required to

respond to Angalet's claims that he, as a disabled person, has been the victim of
unlawful discrimination, in violation of federal law.

7

2.

Angalet's claims for injunctive relief from the Judgment of the Boyd

District Court entered on September 20, 2013, authorizing the eviction from his
apartment, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim
for which any relief can be granted by this Court. Angalet is free to refile these same
claims for injunctive relief in state court.
This 26 th day of September, 2013.

SIgned BY'

~.

Unded States Dtstnct Judge

8