Miles v. Housing Authority of Texarkana TX et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 1/5/2016. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
SHADDONNA D. MILES
V.
HOUSING AUTHORITY
TEXARKANA, TX, ET AL.

§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 5:15CV37-JRG-CMC

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate
Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such
action has been presented for consideration. Plaintiff Shaddonna D. Miles, proceeding pro se
(“Plaintiff”), filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court conducted a de novo
review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Housing Authority of Texarkana, Texas (“HATT”) and
its employee, Vickie Nelson (collectively “Defendants”), alleging Defendants discriminated against
her based on disability. Plaintiff alleges HATT failed to provide assistance through its
homeownership program, resulting in damages of $5,000,000.00.
HATT is a unit of government working with individuals in Bowie County, Texas to obtain
housing. HATT, through a grant provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (“HUD”), operates the Affordable Homeownership Program to allow qualified
applicants to buy and/or build a new home in a specified neighborhood. The homeownership
program is a second-mortgage program. According to HATT, eligible applicants must obtain a first

mortgage to purchase a home; the program provides the second mortgage for the difference between
the first mortgage and the construction price.
In two separate motions, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them for
failure to state a claim. According to Defendants, the Fair Housing Amendments Act extended the
protections of the Fair Housing Act to handicapped individuals, making it unlawful “[t]o
discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer
or renter because of a handicap.” See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). Defendants assert they could not have
discriminated against Plaintiff because of any alleged disability because Plaintiff had not satisfied
all prerequisites to obtaining HATT’s assistance with the Homeownership Program. Specifically,
Defendants assert Plaintiff failed to obtain a loan from an independent lender, which is a prerequisite
to HATT providing down-payment and cost assistance.
According to Defendants, Plaintiff also fails to establish she has a qualifying disability under
the Fair Housing Act. While Defendant Nelson maintains Plaintiff was not discriminated against
in any way, she also moves for dismissal based on qualified immunity, asserting a reasonable official
in Nelson’s position would not have know her actions violated a clearly established right.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with
prejudice. According to the Magistrate Judge, HATT lists on its website the home buyer eligibility
criteria for the Homeownership Program as follows:
•

have a stable, verifiable income that does not exceed 80% of the area median income as
determined by HUD;

2

•

have sufficient creditworthiness to be able to secure a 30-year fixed market rate loan from
a private lender at the maximum level commensurate with their income and the lender’s
underwriting criteria;

•

have the ability to make a down payment of at least 1% or $1000 of the purchase price; and

•

successfully complete a homeownership certification class as directed by the Housing
Authority of the City of Texarkana, Texas (HATT).
In their motion, Defendants assert Plaintiff never received her first mortgage pre-qualification

from an independent lender due to her poor credit score. In her response, Plaintiff did not dispute she
never qualified for assistance. Instead, Plaintiff states Defendant Nelson presented her a Certificate
of Completion for the Homeownership Program “without explanation” that she had “failed to satisfy
all prerequisites for the HOPE 6 program.” Dkt. No. 19 at 1. Plaintiff further states she was not
informed she needed to continue to work toward the program’s ultimate goal of being deemed
“credit-worthy” or “mortgage-ready” by an independent mortgage lender. Id.
For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff does not state a claim for relief against
Defendants based on discrimination and recommended Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice.
As a separate reason supporting her recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff failed to
establish, or even identify, what qualifying disability she has under the Fair Housing Act.
Specifically regarding Defendant Nelson, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff also cannot
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Nelson is subject to qualified immunity.
According to the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific acts indicating Nelson
violated a clearly established right or that her actions were objectively unreasonable. Nor has
Plaintiff alleged any specific facts demonstrating that every reasonable official would have
understood the actions Plaintiff alleges were performed by Nelson would violate Plaintiff’s rights.

3

Thus, the Magistrate Judge concluded Plaintiff had not abrogated the qualified immunity of
Defendant Nelson, and Plaintiff’s claims against her should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for this additional reason.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
In her objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff first addresses, but does not
dispute, her lack of creditworthiness. Plaintiff broadly argues HATT breached its duty to provide its
interested public-housing and Section 8 residents, including Plaintiff, with effective education and
counseling toward the goal of becoming credit-worthy and mortgage-ready to obtain the funds
earmarked for the purposes of assisting in the down-payment and closing costs of a home purchase.
Dkt. No. 22 at 2. According to Plaintiff, HATT failed to provide materials and instructions, and it
did not have protocols in place for monitoring the progress of the program. Id. at 9.
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts Richard Herrington, HATT’s Executive Director at the time,
was remiss in his duty to ensure that program participants had the necessary access to their credit
reports and to competent coordinator/instructors – the two most critical factors in any home buyer
education program. Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Herrington refused to pay for computer
programs which would have allowed for quicker and easier access to credit reports; instead,
participants were “relegated to ordering them via the government-endorsed ‘annualcreditreport.com’
website, or phoning or writing, then waiting to receive them by mail - if [hey] ever got them at all.”
Id. at 3. Regarding her own situation, Plaintiff stated that after she was told she was ready to
purchase a home, her credit reports later revealed her ex-mother-in-law (Donna Miles), who was
deceased, had “racked up a lot of bad debt” in Plaintiff’s name. Id. Plaintiff states she was “thrown

4

for a loop.” Id.1
Plaintiff further assets Robert Nero, the program director hired by Mr. Herrington, had no
relevant experience and was “always preoccupied with something else or rushing to get somewhere”
anytime Plaintiff asked him about homeownership or the program. Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff,
HATT later brought in a woman as executive director, and sometime between the “changing of
executive directors,” Defendant Nelson was hired to be the homeownership coordinator. Id. at 4-5.
Plaintiff asserts Nelson lacks integrity, and HATT was negligent in hiring, training, supervising, and
retaining persons after Robyn Edwards left the homeownership program.2
Plaintiff next addresses her “disability” or “handicap,” asserting it is not of a visible nature.
According to Plaintiff, she has mental, emotional, and psychological disorders which can sometimes
pose “great obstacles” in her life and affect her moods and ability to comprehend. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff states she brought up her disability in this case because of Defendant Nelson’s “deed/hoax”
of telling Plaintiff she was ready to buy a house; having Plaintiff pick out a house (and then lying
to Plaintiff saying it had already sold when it had not); and directing her to purchase a $1000.00
money order payable to Stewart Title. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff assumes Nelson did these things because of Plaintiff’s disability, thinking she could
“get away with the lies and with $1,000.00. . . .” Id. at 7. Plaintiff asserts Nelson’s actions are not
in line with what a “reasonable official” would have done. Id. at 8. According to Plaintiff, because

1

In HATT’s answer, HATT states it was determined that the items on Plaintiff’s credit
report were in fact her purchases. Dkt. No. 12 at 2.
2

Robyn Edwards also filed in this Court a complaint against HATT and Vickie Nelson,
alleging the tort of defamation. See Cause No. 5:15cv36. The case was dismissed with prejudice
on November 13, 2015.
5

of Nelson’s lie, Plaintiff did not renew her expiring lease but instead rented a house with problems,
thinking it would be only a temporary dwelling for her family. Id. Plaintiff asserts only later did she
and her children move into a rental house Robyn Edwards was attempting to sell. Id. at 9.
DE NOVO REVIEW
Although Plaintiff asserts HATT breached its duty in several ways in its administration of
the homeownership program, Plaintiff does not dispute that to be eligible for the program a potential
home buyer must have sufficient creditworthiness to be able to secure a mortgage from a private
lender. Plaintiff does not dispute her lack of creditworthiness or the fact she was denied a loan for
the home because of her low credit score. In her objections, Plaintiff acknowledges that everyone
seeking to become a home owner, whether disabled or in the program or not, must meet the same
“credit-worthy” or “mortgage-ready” requirements. Dkt. No. 22 at 6. Plaintiff states there is not
anything “special” HATT could have done for her with regard to its program – “short of paying off
[Plaintiff’s] debts to raise [her] credit scores.” Id. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for relief against Defendants based on discrimination when Plaintiff
never qualified for assistance.
In her objections, Plaintiff elaborates that she has mental, emotional, and psychological
disorders which can sometimes pose “great obstacles” in her life and which affect her moods and
her ability to comprehend. Plaintiff also attached to her objections a November 17, 2015 letter from
Dr. Roger House with Psychiatric Services, wherein Dr. House states the combination of Plaintiff’s
mental illness and emotional distress “due to the misfortune of not receiving her home through the
Texarkana Housing Authority has increased her symptoms of depression, insomnia, mind racing,
anxiety, more forgetful, and difficulty making decisions,” causing emotional distress for her children
6

as well. Dkt. No. 22 at 11. Dr. House states the family needs a safe environment and stable place
to live. Id.3
Section 3602(h) of the Fair Housing Act defines “handicap” as a physical or mental
impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, a record of
having such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. See 42 U.S.C.A. §
3602(h). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff fails to establish her alleged mental disability
qualifies as a handicap under the Fair Housing Act. Plaintiff also fails to show Defendants were
aware of any qualifying disability. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted
under the Fair Housing Act for discrimination based on a handicap.
Finally, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Nelson fail for the additional reason that
Plaintiff has not abrogated the qualified immunity of Nelson.
Having reviewed the underlying briefing, the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the
findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant HATT’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10); and Defendant
Vickie Nelson’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) are GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED Plaintiff’s above-entitled and numbered cause of action is DISMISSED WITH
3

In her objections, Plaintiff acknowledges the rental house in which she currently lives
has been “well maintained, has plenty of space for [her] children to play and grow (with six lots
on which [she] can later build more); and no rowdy neighbors to bully them or take their toys.”
Dkt. No. 22 at 9.
7

PREJUDICE.

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of January, 2016.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8