Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James v. Hud

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

February 23, 2015

ANTHONY E. JAMES, Plaintiff,
v.
HUD, ALLEGHENY COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT RE: DEFENDANT HUD'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 19)

ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This case centers on alleged discrimination based upon race and disability in violation of the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Pro se Plaintiff advances various causes of action against Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and Allegheny County Housing Authority ("Allegheny County"). Doc. Nos. 2, 3, 11, 16. Allegheny County has filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which contains twenty-five affirmative defenses. Doc. No. 12.[1]

Presently before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by HUD, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and, in the alternative, Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 19. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Addendum to 2nd Amended Complaint, " which consists of: (1) a one-page typed document relating Plaintiff's allegations that he was unjustly banned from his apartment complex; (2) pages of a document dated January 12, 2015 (previously filed as Third Amended Complaint at Doc. No. 16), which has handwritten circles around certain paragraphs and the word "righ[t]s" written above the body of the text; (3) a two-page typed document dated January 26, 2015, which contains "additional information" in support of the Amended Complaint; (4) a one-page typed document with hand-written notations (previously filed as Doc. No. 11, pg. 3); and (5) a copy of the first page of Plaintiff's Complaint dated December 1, 2014, which includes a handwritten notation that "[t]his is everything facts that happened to me in Wilmerding Hi-Rise fo[u]r and a half year[s]" (previously filed Doc. No. 1, pg. 1). Doc. No. 24. Based upon these documents and the liberal standard provided to pro se litigants, the Court finds that Plaintiff wholly opposes HUD's Motion to Dismiss. The Court ordered that any Reply be filed by February 19, 2015, at Noon. 02/05/2015 Text Order. None has been filed. Therefore, this Motion is ripe for disposition.

II. Standard of Review

The Court will first examine HUD's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and the applicable standard of review.

A Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges this Court's "very power to hear the case." See Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp., 514 F.Supp.2d 753, 759 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (Lancaster, J.) (quoting Mortenson v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977)). As the party asserting jurisdiction, Plaintiff "bears the burden of showing that its claims are properly before the district court." Dev. Fin. Corp. v. Alpha Hous. & Health Care, 54 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir. 1995). In reviewing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), this Court must distinguish between facial attacks and factual attacks. See Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 2006).

When, as in this case, a Defendant launches a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, "no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims." Petruska, 462 F.3d at 302 (quoting Mortenson, 549 F.2d at 891). In a factual attack, this Court must weigh the evidence relating to jurisdiction, with discretion to allow affidavits, documents, and even limited evidentiary hearings. See U.S. ex rel. Atkinson v. Pa. Shipbuilding Co., 473 F.3d 506, 514 (3d Cir. 2007).

III. Statement of Facts

The operative document at this junction is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 11.[2]

Plaintiff was a resident of an apartment in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania from 2007 to 2014. Id. at pg. 1. Plaintiff's rent is subsidized through federal governmental organizations. Id . In March of 2011, Plaintiff applied to the building manager for a handicap unit within the apartment. Id . Plaintiff provided three relevant prescriptions from his physician. Id . A Caucasian woman was placed into one of the available handicap units. Another one of the units was occupied by a Caucasian woman who has cerebral palsy, but does not use a walker, cane, or wheelchair. Id.

Plaintiff's request for a handicap apartment was denied by the Human Relations Commission because Plaintiff was not seen with a wheelchair, walker, or cane. Id . Plaintiff was not informed of this decision for nine months. Id . Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Housing Authority based upon this denial. Doc. No. 16, pg. 1. During 2012 and 2013, four handicap units were given to senior citizens and others. In 2014, Plaintiff was offered a handicap unit, which was the same unit for which he had originally applied in 2011. Doc. No. 11, pg. 1.

Plaintiff has had other difficulties with apartment management including:

• an incident related to lost keys in November 2013, during which Plaintiff was ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.