Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23885
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Stevens entered a lease with HASB in 2007; lease included a One Strike/Zero Tolerance policy for criminal activity.
- Stevens’ household included two sons as listed members; HASB alleged criminal activity by residents/guests could justify eviction even without arrests.
- In 2007-2008 a shooting occurred in the building involving Stevens’ invited guests; HASB issued a series of Notices to Terminate Lease starting January 2008.
- First Notice (Jan 14, 2008) relied on alleged gun-related activity; Stevens challenged factual portrayal but not the First Notice in this suit.
- Second Notice (Nov 6, 2008) alleged stabbing, drug activity, and a house arrest monitor issue; Third Notice (Nov 24, 2008) cited further alleged violations and required vacating by Dec 24, 2008.
- Stevens vacated in January 2009; district court granted summary judgment on federal claims and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice; Stevens appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment standards were misapplied | Stevens argues Adickes burden shifting was misapplied | HASB properly challenged claims; Celotex standard applied | No reversible error; proper Celotex framework applied |
| Whether the case is moot | Stevens' departure was involuntary due to notices; live damages remain | Departure was voluntary after Notices; no live injury to the First Notice | Moot; no ongoing relief available for First Notice claims |
| Whether the One Strike policy as applied violated Rucker | Policy imposed strict liability eviction without proper safeguards | Rucker permits no-fault eviction for guests under tenant's control; valid | Policy as applied not unconstitutional under Rucker |
| Whether summary judgment on segregated housing claim was proper | Evidence showed site was predominantly African-American, implying segregation | No record evidence of site segregation; claim untimely and unsupported | Grants defense; no genuine issue; no viable Section 3604(b) claim |
| Whether Stevens had standing and statute-of-limitations issues | Claims raised should survive; standing to challenge eviction and related acts | Claims lack timely basis; mootness and standing resolved against Stevens | Stevens lacked standing on the asserted grounds; claims adjudicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifts on summary judgment; movant need not negate every possibility)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (summary judgment burden shifting misunderstood; Celotex governs)
- Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 647 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards; Adickes misinterpretation rejected)
- Rucker v. Hudson Housing, 535 U.S. 125 (U.S. 2002) (No-fault eviction; control by invitation acceptable under HUD lease terms)
- Halprin v. Prairie Single Family Homes of Dearborn Park Ass'n, 388 F.3d 327 (7th Cir. 2004) (FH Act targets access; post-acquisition discrimination limits)
- Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (application of 3604(b) to terms of acquisition and related practices)
- St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007) (mootness; injunctive relief unavailable when no live issue)
- United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916 (7th Cir. 1992) (emotional distress damages require demonstrable proof)