Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)

Citation
Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Parent Document
Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Effective Date
2011-12-01

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text

1,748 chars
sense that she acquiesced to the Second and Third No-
tices. Stevens, of course, sees her departure as forced.
Nevertheless, she never challenged the Second or Third
Notices, and never amended her complaint to add any
claims relating to those Notices.
  The district court found that Stevens’ challenges to the
Indiana ejectment statute are moot because she left her
apartment in response to the Second and Third Notices.
She did not contest the factual or legal bases for those
Notices. The court also determined that her claims did
not meet any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine.
The court rejected Stevens’ segregation claim because it
was untimely, because it related only to post-acquisition
claims of discrimination, and because she failed to
provide any evidence in support of the claim. The court
ruled in favor of the defendants on Stevens’ Section 1981
claim relating to making and enforcing her lease agree-
ment because she failed to set forth any evidence that
the termination of her lease was based on racial discrim-
ination. Instead, Stevens herself claimed only that her
lease was terminated because HASB was holding her
responsible for the actions of other persons who were
not under her control. Stevens’ third-party beneficiary
claim failed because, among other things, she failed to
supply any evidence that HASB breached any contract
with HUD. Finally, the court rejected Stevens’ claim that
the First Notice violated her equal protection and due
process rights by holding her responsible for the actions
of persons who were not under her control. Stevens
conceded facts that demonstrated that one of the
shooters, Henderson, was present at the apartment as
No. 10-2724                                              9