ILNews

7th Circuit affirms ruling against woman kicked out of public housing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who challenged the Housing Authority of South Bend’s decision to terminate her lease for federally subsidized public housing because of criminal activity lost her appeal before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Bridgett Stevens v. Housing Authority of South Bend, Indiana, et al. and State of Indiana, No. 10-2724, Bridgett Stevens filed a lawsuit after receiving a notice from the housing authority that alleged she violated lease provisions that prohibited criminal activity on the property. A shooting between Stevens’ daughter’s boyfriend and the father of her children led to the first notice. She received two subsequent notices after police responded to her apartment to investigate a fight and the discovery of marijuana at the apartment. She left the apartment after the third notice.

Her lawsuit – which only dealt with the first notice – alleged that the HASB and other individuals violated the Fair Housing Act, the 14th Amendment, and the Indiana law. The District Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding her challenges to the Indiana ejectment statute to be moot because she left after she received the second and third notices and that her due process rights weren’t violated because she was held responsible for the actions of persons who were not under her control. It found although one of the men involved in the shooting was not literally under her control in the colloquial sense, he was present at the apartment only because a household member had invited him.

“Given that she ultimately left her apartment for reasons unrelated to the acts that form the basis of the lawsuit, the appropriate question is whether she retains a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the suit and whether the court’s decision could affect her rights,” wrote Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner. “Injunctive relief is therefore no longer available to her. Declaratory relief suffers from the same mootness problem because it would have no impact on Stevens going forward.”

The judges also noted that the fact Stevens lied on her application about ever having lived in public housing and the presence of illegal drugs in her apartment would support terminating the lease.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT