Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Family Alliance for the Mentally Ill v. City of Fresno
CV-F-96-5349 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal. filed Apr. 8, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51157
Description
Persons with Mental Disabilities Challenge Fresno’s Opposition to Supported Housing
Abstract
Plaintiffs have filed their complaint against defendant city
officials’ refusal to fund a residence for developmentally
disabled residents. Plaintiffs, an advocacy organization for
persons with mental disabilities and two persons with mental
disabilities, allege that defendants fueled opposition and blocked
funding for the rehabilitation of low-income, independent,
supported housing for people with mental disabilities; as a result,
they have lost the opportunity to obtain a 22-unit apartment
building at no cost. Plaintiffs assert that the City of Fresno
continues to lack a single supported housing complex for people
with mental disabilities. They claim that defendants are in
violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et
seq., the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from, inter alia, continuing
to deny funding for the rehabilitation and development of the
project or from obtaining independent supported housing for people
with disabilities; interpreting "open" or affirmative
marketing requirements to disallow the funding or development of
housing for people with disabilities; and requiring plaintiffs to
obtain a use permit to rehabilitate and operate independent
supported housing for people with disabilities. Plaintiffs also
seek damages, civil penalties, and costs and attorney fees.
