627 F. App'x 295
5th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Anthony Hood and Princess Williams contacted Asset Plus about leasing a specific Lakeview Lofts apartment in Jan 2012; a phone agent said the unit was available but an employee (Cantu) denied availability in person. They signed a lease for that unit eight days later.
- After moving in, Plaintiffs alleged ongoing harassment (noise, threats, attempts to extract money, eviction notices) by Asset Plus employees and a Houston police officer who also worked security for Asset Plus. Plaintiffs claim the conduct was intended to force them to release FHA and other claims.
- Plaintiffs filed an administrative FHA complaint (HUD → TWCCRD), which issued a Determination of No Reasonable Cause.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court asserting criminal statute claims, First Amendment/§ 1983 claims, Fair Housing Act claims (§§ 3604, 3617, 3604(d) alleged), and state defamation; the district court dismissed all claims.
- On appeal Plaintiffs challenge only the FHA and First Amendment/§ 1983 rulings; they also asserted the district judge was biased and erred by staying discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Asset Plus’s in-person denial and subsequent conduct state a claim under FHA §§ 3604(a)/(b)/(d) (disparate treatment/availability) | The initial in-person denial and later harassment show discriminatory treatment and a § 3604(d) misrepresentation that the unit was unavailable because of race | The pleadings do not plausibly connect any denial or later conduct to race; Plaintiffs obtained the requested unit and alleged facts are consistent with non-discriminatory explanations | Dismissed — Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege race was a significant factor or pretext for denial or later conduct |
| Whether post-lease harassment and threats violate FHA § 3617 (coercion/interference) | Harassment and threats coerced Plaintiffs and interfered with exercise/enjoyment of FHA rights | Plaintiffs never plausibly alleged they exercised rights under § 3604, and their voluntary tenancy undermines a § 3617 claim; harassment allegations lack factual nexus to FHA rights | Dismissed — no plausible § 3617 claim because no adequately pleaded § 3604 violation or connection between harassment and FHA-protected activity |
| Whether Plaintiffs adequately alleged a First Amendment/§ 1983 claim | Plaintiffs contend their rights were violated but the complaint should be read to raise a § 1983 claim | Defendants note Plaintiffs failed to plead § 1983 properly in district court despite leave to amend | Dismissed — issue not preserved on appeal (Plaintiffs failed to amend to state a § 1983 claim) |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in staying discovery or showed bias | Plaintiffs assert the stay and judge’s conduct were biased and prejudicial | District court stayed discovery to resolve the motion to dismiss; stay and ruling were within discretion; no evidence of bias presented | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion or demonstrated bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg. Corp., 748 F.3d 631 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead more than formulaic recitation)
- Woods-Drake v. Lundy, 667 F.2d 1198 (5th Cir.) (threats/eviction as conduct falling under § 3604(b))
- Cox v. City of Dallas, 430 F.3d 734 (5th Cir.) (FHA standing/claims discussion)
- Artisan/Amer. Corp. v. City of Alvin, 588 F.3d 291 (5th Cir.) (showing pretext and race as significant factor under § 3604)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (disparate treatment proof examples)
- Lincoln v. Case, 340 F.3d 283 (5th Cir.) (use of comparative inquiries to show discriminatory denial)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 (2014) (leave to amend to add § 1983 citation)