Perkins v. Metro. Council

DAVID S. DOTY

Motion denied.

Heather Meyers, Esq., Michael W. Hagedorn, Esq. and Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, St. Paul, MN, for plaintiff. Mary G. Dobbins, Esq. and Landrum Dobbins LLC, Edina, MN, for defendant.

DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon the motion for preliminary injunction by plaintiff Kimberly Perkins. Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court denies the motion.

Given Metro HRA's requirement to comply with HUD regulations, the court concludes that excusing Perkins's eviction for the serious lease violation and reinstating Section 8 benefits would likely not have been a reasonable accommodation for Perkins's disabilities. Cf. Hover v. Fla. Power & Light Co., No. 93–14236, 1995 WL 91531, at *4 (S.D.Fla. Feb. 6, 1995) (“This Court cannot imagine any Court finding that an employer is required to intentionally violate a Federal Regulation and/or Statute to make a reasonable accommodation to an employee....”). Moreover, the contract between HUD and Metro HRA provided that Metro HRA “shall use the Annual Contribution [from HUD] solely for the purpose of providing Decent, Safe, and Sanitary dwellings for Families in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Act and all regulations issued pursuant thereto.” Smith Aff. Ex. A, at ¶ 2.2 (emphasis added). Requiring Metro HRA to jeopardize its HUD funding by intentionally violating an applicable regulation cannot constitute a reasonable accommodation. See Huberty, 374 F.Supp.2d at 774 (noting that accommodation is not reasonable if it imposes financial or administrative burdens). As a result, Perkins cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of her FHAA failure-to-accommodate claim.

Perkins also alleges a § 1983 claim for alleged due process violations. Specifically, Perkins alleges that she has a property interest in her Section 8 benefits, and that Metro HRA terminated her benefits in violation of the FHAA. As already explained, however, Perkins has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on her claim that Metro HRA violated the FHAA. Likewise, Perkins cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the derivative § 1983 claim. As a result, Perkins has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of either claim, and this Dataphase factor weighs against injunctive relief.

To establish irreparable harm, “a party must show that the harm is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief.” Iowa Utils. Bd. v. F.C.C., 109 F.3d 418, 425 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an award of damages.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir.2009).

The court concludes that Perkins did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, indicating that irreparable harm is unlikely. At this stage in the proceedings, however, the record is not developed and “a decision on the merits” has not been rendered. Hubbard Feeds, Inc. v. Animal Feed Supplement, Inc., 182 F.3d 598, 603 (8th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). As a result, the court examines the potential harm alleged by Perkins.

Perkins argues that the denial of Section 8 assistance constitutes irreparable harm. Specifically, Perkins argues that, because of the cessation of benefits, she is now homeless and has been unable to secure affordable housing. See Ver. Compl. ¶¶ 63–65. Such injury is sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. See Jackson v. Jacobs, 971 F.Supp. 560, 565 (N.D.Ga.1997) (“[L]oss of subsidized housing constitutes irreparable injury justifying injunctive relief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, this Dataphase factor weighs in favor of injunctive relief.

Under this factor, “a court should flexibly weigh the case's particular circumstances to determine whether ... justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo.” United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir.1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As already explained, Perkins has demonstrated the possibility of irreparable harm. That harm is balanced, however, by Metro HRA's interests in the uniform application of its rules and its need to comply with HUD regulations. Therefore, the balance of harms does not strongly favor either party, and this Dataphase factor is neutral.

Finally, Perkins argues that the public interest weighs in favor of reinstating her Section 8 benefits. Specifically, Perkins argues that the public has a strong interest in preventing homelessness and providing housing for individuals with disabilities. See Jackson, 971 F.Supp. at 565. As already explained, however, Perkins has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, Metro HRA argues that the public interest weighs in favor of denying relief, as Section 8 is not an entitlement program and there are hundreds of families on the waiting list for Section 8 assistance. Given these competing interests, the court determines that this Dataphase factor weighs slightly in favor of injunctive relief. Therefore, based upon a balancing of the Dataphase factors, the court determines that a preliminary injunction is not warranted.

Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 10] is denied.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.