Lett v. Tew (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
1:17-cv-00155
M.D. Ala.Aug 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lavedrice Lett, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Terry Tew under the Fair Housing Act seeking injunctive relief (stay of eviction, repairs) and $500,000 in damages.
- An eviction judgment in Geneva County District Court (April 21, 2017) was attached to Plaintiff’s filings; Plaintiff asked this federal court to vacate the eviction and stay enforcement pending August 31, 2017.
- The Magistrate Judge issued a show‑cause order asking why the case should not be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine; the order and a follow‑up directing Plaintiff to update her address were returned unclaimed and received no response.
- Defendant answered denying the complaint; no further litigation activity occurred after May 2017.
- The Magistrate Judge reviewed Younger abstention and the court’s obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended dismissal without prejudice both for Younger abstention and for failure to prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court should hear Fair Housing claim that seeks to enjoin/undo ongoing state eviction | Lett seeks federal injunctive/declaratory relief to vacate/stay the state eviction and obtain repairs/damages | Tew denied claims; relies on ongoing state eviction proceedings (implicit) | Dismissed under Younger abstention; state eviction is ongoing and provides forum for federal defenses |
| Whether Younger abstention applies to eviction proceedings | Lett contends federal relief appropriate now (asks court to set aside eviction) | State eviction implicates core judicial function; federal abstention appropriate | Younger applies: eviction falls within categories warranting abstention; Middlesex factors met; no bad faith or inadequate state forum |
| Whether Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis complaint should be dismissed sua sponte under §1915(e)(2)(B) | Lett’s complaint alleges FHAct claims | Court must screen and may dismiss frivolous/meritless claims; also procedural defaults | Case dismissed without prejudice under Younger and for failure to prosecute; screening concerns noted but dismissal based on abstention and abandonment |
| Whether case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute/address court orders | Lett failed to respond to show‑cause and address updates; mail returned | No rebuttal or updated address from Lett | Dismissal for failure to prosecute appropriate; plaintiff warned and ignored court orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (establishing federal abstention in deference to certain ongoing state proceedings)
- Sprint Commc’ns. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013) (defining the narrow categories where Younger abstention applies and emphasizing exceptions are "exceptional")
- Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (factors for abstention when parallel state proceedings exist)
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (court’s independent duty to examine jurisdiction)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (court’s inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Butler v. Ala. Judicial Inquiry Comm’n, 245 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) (principles of comity and federalism underlying Younger abstention)