Huntley v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth

No. C-1-95-959 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 1998) ; Clearinghouse Number: 52262

Description

Availability of Section 8 Vouchers and Replacement of Public Housing Moot Claim Against Department of Housing and Urban Development

Abstract

The district court held that, although vouchers and the replacement of public housing moot plaintiff public housing residents’ claim against Department of Housing and Urban Development, their claim for compensatory damages under the Fair Housing Act and Title VI against Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) for the racially disproportionate adverse effect of their displacement is not moot. Plaintiff filed suit twenty years ago to compel CMHA to develop public housing in a way that desegregated low-income housing. The parties entered a consent decree that gave effect to the goals sought by plaintiff’s complaint. Before the agreement, CMHA purchased a building complex of 144 units, located in a predominantly white neighborhood of moderate income. Ten years later, 95 percent of the complex’s residents were African American, but the deterioration of the complex’s physical condition had forced CMHA to relocate all residents. When the last of the residents were relocated, most were moved to predominantly African American neighborhoods. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They claimed that (1) relocation was a de facto demolition and CMHA therefore violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437p; (2) CMHA, in failing to provide reasonable relocation assistance, violated the Uniform Relocation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4601; and (3) CMHA failed to further the goals of fair housing affirmatively and violated 42 U.S.C. § 3608(d)(4) and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to allege that Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) violated 42 U.S.C. § 3608(d)(5). Although the court let stand the compensatory damages claims against CMHA, it held that HUD’s demolition approval and CMHA’s acceptance rendered moot the claim of de facto demolition because proper procedures were followed. The availability of section 8 vouchers, which allowed plaintiffs to move anywhere, rendered moot their claim that CMHA, in relocating them to segregated neighborhoods, failed to provide plaintiffs with comparable replacement dwellings. Compensatory damages against HUD were barred by sovereign immunity.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs represented by John E. Schrider Jr., Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati, 901 Elm St., Cincinnati, OH 45202; 513.241.9400.
Docket Date
1998-08-28 00:00:00+00:00

Files

No files available.

Filed under: