Ocoee v. Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Sec. 8 et al
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 6/21/12;Parties are allowed to and including September 19, 2012, to complete discovery. After the end of the discovery, the Court will consider anyappropriate motions. cc:counsel, Pro-Se Plaintiff (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-336-H
SPRINGWATER OCOEE
PLAINTIFF
V.
LOUISVILLE METRO HOUSING AUTHORITY
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Court recently held a conference to discuss all aspects of the case. Plaintiff,
Springwater Ocoee, and counsel for the Housing Authority appeared in person. Plaintiff filed
her complaint over a year ago. Much of the original causes of action have been dismissed.
At this point, Plaintiff’s complaint is that she was denied access to Metro Housing
Authority accommodations based on her gender or race. She also says that she was retaliated
against after filing this lawsuit. The Court asked Plaintiff to describe the evidence which might
support her claims. Plaintiff described a series of events beginning with an alleged unlawful
police stop during which the police allegedly took $1,500 in cash. This resulted in her losing her
house which resulted in her needing to seek housing from the Housing Authority. Thereafter,
from time to time, Plaintiff did reside in Housing Authority accommodations. However, most
recently she was evicted from public housing for her alleged participation in a fight. This matter
was appealed to Jefferson District Court where her case was dismissed and the eviction upheld.
The Court told Plaintiff that she could have an additional period of time to develop her
case or to submit proof. Plaintiff said that she would not submit additional evidence, except for
a mass of unorganized papers which she kept in a cloth bag. The Court declined to accept the
bag of papers. Plaintiff could not describe a plausible cause of action during the hour discussion
with the Court. The complaint itself suggests that she was not given proper credit for being a
“homeless” person and, therefore, was not placed properly on the Housing Authority wait list.
Admittedly, there are many barriers to Plaintiff’s proceeding with her claims: she lacks
understanding of the law and may perceive unlawful activity where none exists. She is poor and
homeless. Therefore, she does not have the resources to pursue a case. She has no attorney and
the Court could not determine whether she had tried to obtain one. Though she is convinced that
others have harmed her or discriminated against her, she seemed unwilling to pursue evidence to
convince the Court of her claims. By declining the opportunity to either present or organize
evidence on her behalf, Plaintiff declares some unwillingness to go forward. In such
circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot possibly succeed in her claims, as the Court cannot make the
argument of facts for her. Nevertheless, the Court will allow three additional months for
discovery of evidence which might prove Plaintiff’s claims. The Court will consider any
appropriate motion thereafter.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are allowed to and including September 19,
2012, to complete discovery. After the end of the discovery, the Court will consider any
appropriate motions.
June 21, 2012
cc:
Counsel of Record and Pro-Se Plaintiff
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?