Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 96
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`No. 5:15CV37-JRG-CMC
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`SHADDONNA D. MILES
`
`V.
`
`HOUSING AUTHORITY
`TEXARKANA, TX, ET AL.
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States
`
`Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate
`
`Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such
`
`action has been presented for consideration. Plaintiff Shaddonna D. Miles, proceeding pro se
`
`(“Plaintiff”), filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court conducted a de novo
`
`review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Housing Authority of Texarkana, Texas (“HATT”) and
`
`its employee, Vickie Nelson (collectively “Defendants”), alleging Defendants discriminated against
`
`her based on disability. Plaintiff alleges HATT failed to provide assistance through its
`
`homeownership program, resulting in damages of $5,000,000.00.
`
`HATT is a unit of government working with individuals in Bowie County, Texas to obtain
`
`housing. HATT, through a grant provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
`
`Development (“HUD”), operates the Affordable Homeownership Program to allow qualified
`
`applicants to buy and/or build a new home in a specified neighborhood. The homeownership
`
`program is a second-mortgage program. According to HATT, eligible applicants must obtain a first
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 97
`
`mortgage to purchase a home; the program provides the second mortgage for the difference between
`
`the first mortgage and the construction price.
`
`In two separate motions, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them for
`
`failure to state a claim. According to Defendants, the Fair Housing Amendments Act extended the
`
`protections of the Fair Housing Act to handicapped individuals, making it unlawful “[t]o
`
`discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer
`
`or renter because of a handicap.” See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). Defendants assert they could not have
`
`discriminated against Plaintiff because of any alleged disability because Plaintiff had not satisfied
`
`all prerequisites to obtaining HATT’s assistance with the Homeownership Program. Specifically,
`
`Defendants assert Plaintiff failed to obtain a loan from an independent lender, which is a prerequisite
`
`to HATT providing down-payment and cost assistance.
`
`According to Defendants, Plaintiff also fails to establish she has a qualifying disability under
`
`the Fair Housing Act. While Defendant Nelson maintains Plaintiff was not discriminated against
`
`in any way, she also moves for dismissal based on qualified immunity, asserting a reasonable official
`
`in Nelson’s position would not have know her actions violated a clearly established right.
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`
`
`On November 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
`
`recommending Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with
`
`prejudice. According to the Magistrate Judge, HATT lists on its website the home buyer eligibility
`
`criteria for the Homeownership Program as follows:
`
`•
`
`have a stable, verifiable income that does not exceed 80% of the area median income as
`determined by HUD;
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 98
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`have sufficient creditworthiness to be able to secure a 30-year fixed market rate loan from
`a private lender at the maximum level commensurate with their income and the lender’s
`underwriting criteria;
`
`have the ability to make a down payment of at least 1% or $1000 of the purchase price; and
`
`successfully complete a homeownership certification class as directed by the Housing
`Authority of the City of Texarkana, Texas (HATT).
`
`In their motion, Defendants assert Plaintiff never received her first mortgage pre-qualification
`
`from an independent lender due to her poor credit score. In her response, Plaintiff did not dispute she
`
`never qualified for assistance. Instead, Plaintiff states Defendant Nelson presented her a Certificate
`
`of Completion for the Homeownership Program “without explanation” that she had “failed to satisfy
`
`all prerequisites for the HOPE 6 program.” Dkt. No. 19 at 1. Plaintiff further states she was not
`
`informed she needed to continue to work toward the program’s ultimate goal of being deemed
`
`“credit-worthy” or “mortgage-ready” by an independent mortgage lender. Id.
`
`For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff does not state a claim for relief against
`
`Defendants based on discrimination and recommended Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`As a separate reason supporting her recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff failed to
`
`establish, or even identify, what qualifying disability she has under the Fair Housing Act.
`
`Specifically regarding Defendant Nelson, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff also cannot
`
`state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Nelson is subject to qualified immunity.
`
`According to the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific acts indicating Nelson
`
`violated a clearly established right or that her actions were objectively unreasonable. Nor has
`
`Plaintiff alleged any specific facts demonstrating that every reasonable official would have
`
`understood the actions Plaintiff alleges were performed by Nelson would violate Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 99
`
`Thus, the Magistrate Judge concluded Plaintiff had not abrogated the qualified immunity of
`
`Defendant Nelson, and Plaintiff’s claims against her should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant
`
`to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for this additional reason.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
`
`In her objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff first addresses, but does not
`
`dispute, her lack of creditworthiness. Plaintiff broadly argues HATT breached its duty to provide its
`
`interested public-housing and Section 8 residents, including Plaintiff, with effective education and
`
`counseling toward the goal of becoming credit-worthy and mortgage-ready to obtain the funds
`
`earmarked for the purposes of assisting in the down-payment and closing costs of a home purchase.
`
`Dkt. No. 22 at 2. According to Plaintiff, HATT failed to provide materials and instructions, and it
`
`did not have protocols in place for monitoring the progress of the program. Id. at 9.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff asserts Richard Herrington, HATT’s Executive Director at the time,
`
`was remiss in his duty to ensure that program participants had the necessary access to their credit
`
`reports and to competent coordinator/instructors – the two most critical factors in any home buyer
`
`education program. Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Herrington refused to pay for computer
`
`programs which would have allowed for quicker and easier access to credit reports; instead,
`
`participants were “relegated to ordering them via the government-endorsed ‘annualcreditreport.com’
`
`website, or phoning or writing, then waiting to receive them by mail - if [hey] ever got them at all.”
`
`Id. at 3. Regarding her own situation, Plaintiff stated that after she was told she was ready to
`
`purchase a home, her credit reports later revealed her ex-mother-in-law (Donna Miles), who was
`
`deceased, had “racked up a lot of bad debt” in Plaintiff’s name. Id. Plaintiff states she was “thrown
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 100
`
`for a loop.” Id.1
`
`Plaintiff further assets Robert Nero, the program director hired by Mr. Herrington, had no
`
`relevant experience and was “always preoccupied with something else or rushing to get somewhere”
`
`anytime Plaintiff asked him about homeownership or the program. Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff,
`
`HATT later brought in a woman as executive director, and sometime between the “changing of
`
`executive directors,” Defendant Nelson was hired to be the homeownership coordinator. Id. at 4-5.
`
`Plaintiff asserts Nelson lacks integrity, and HATT was negligent in hiring, training, supervising, and
`
`retaining persons after Robyn Edwards left the homeownership program.2
`
`Plaintiff next addresses her “disability” or “handicap,” asserting it is not of a visible nature.
`
`According to Plaintiff, she has mental, emotional, and psychological disorders which can sometimes
`
`pose “great obstacles” in her life and affect her moods and ability to comprehend. Id. at 6-7.
`
`Plaintiff states she brought up her disability in this case because of Defendant Nelson’s “deed/hoax”
`
`of telling Plaintiff she was ready to buy a house; having Plaintiff pick out a house (and then lying
`
`to Plaintiff saying it had already sold when it had not); and directing her to purchase a $1000.00
`
`money order payable to Stewart Title. Id. at 6-7.
`
`Plaintiff assumes Nelson did these things because of Plaintiff’s disability, thinking she could
`
`“get away with the lies and with $1,000.00. . . .” Id. at 7. Plaintiff asserts Nelson’s actions are not
`
`in line with what a “reasonable official” would have done. Id. at 8. According to Plaintiff, because
`
`1 In HATT’s answer, HATT states it was determined that the items on Plaintiff’s credit
`report were in fact her purchases. Dkt. No. 12 at 2.
`
`2 Robyn Edwards also filed in this Court a complaint against HATT and Vickie Nelson,
`alleging the tort of defamation. See Cause No. 5:15cv36. The case was dismissed with prejudice
`on November 13, 2015.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 101
`
`of Nelson’s lie, Plaintiff did not renew her expiring lease but instead rented a house with problems,
`
`thinking it would be only a temporary dwelling for her family. Id. Plaintiff asserts only later did she
`
`and her children move into a rental house Robyn Edwards was attempting to sell. Id. at 9.
`
`DE NOVO REVIEW
`
`Although Plaintiff asserts HATT breached its duty in several ways in its administration of
`
`the homeownership program, Plaintiff does not dispute that to be eligible for the program a potential
`
`home buyer must have sufficient creditworthiness to be able to secure a mortgage from a private
`
`lender. Plaintiff does not dispute her lack of creditworthiness or the fact she was denied a loan for
`
`the home because of her low credit score. In her objections, Plaintiff acknowledges that everyone
`
`seeking to become a home owner, whether disabled or in the program or not, must meet the same
`
`“credit-worthy” or “mortgage-ready” requirements. Dkt. No. 22 at 6. Plaintiff states there is not
`
`anything “special” HATT could have done for her with regard to its program – “short of paying off
`
`[Plaintiff’s] debts to raise [her] credit scores.” Id. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
`
`Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for relief against Defendants based on discrimination when Plaintiff
`
`never qualified for assistance.
`
`In her objections, Plaintiff elaborates that she has mental, emotional, and psychological
`
`disorders which can sometimes pose “great obstacles” in her life and which affect her moods and
`
`her ability to comprehend. Plaintiff also attached to her objections a November 17, 2015 letter from
`
`Dr. Roger House with Psychiatric Services, wherein Dr. House states the combination of Plaintiff’s
`
`mental illness and emotional distress “due to the misfortune of not receiving her home through the
`
`Texarkana Housing Authority has increased her symptoms of depression, insomnia, mind racing,
`
`anxiety, more forgetful, and difficulty making decisions,” causing emotional distress for her children
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 102
`
`as well. Dkt. No. 22 at 11. Dr. House states the family needs a safe environment and stable place
`
`to live. Id.3
`
`Section 3602(h) of the Fair Housing Act defines “handicap” as a physical or mental
`
`impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, a record of
`
`having such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. See 42 U.S.C.A. §
`
`3602(h). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff fails to establish her alleged mental disability
`
`qualifies as a handicap under the Fair Housing Act. Plaintiff also fails to show Defendants were
`
`aware of any qualifying disability. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted
`
`under the Fair Housing Act for discrimination based on a handicap.
`
`Finally, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Nelson fail for the additional reason that
`
`Plaintiff has not abrogated the qualified immunity of Nelson.
`
`Having reviewed the underlying briefing, the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s
`
`objections, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
`
`correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the
`
`findings and conclusions of this Court.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendant HATT’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10); and Defendant
`
`Vickie Nelson’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) are GRANTED. It is further
`
`ORDERED Plaintiff’s above-entitled and numbered cause of action is DISMISSED WITH
`
`3 In her objections, Plaintiff acknowledges the rental house in which she currently lives
`has been “well maintained, has plenty of space for [her] children to play and grow (with six lots
`on which [she] can later build more); and no rowdy neighbors to bully them or take their toys.”
`Dkt. No. 22 at 9.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00037-JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 103
`Case 5:15—cv—00037—JRG Document 23 Filed 01/05/16 Page 8 of 8 Page|D #: 103
`
`PREJUDICE.
`PREJUDICE.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of January, 2016.
`
` RODNEY GIL RAP
`
`UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`8