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)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/618130/stevens-v-housing-authority-of-s... ↗

Full Text

1,570 chars

statute allowing a no-fault eviction of a tenant who
did not know that a household member or guest was
engaged in drug activity or dangerous criminal activity
posed no due process problem. Rucker, 535 U.S. at 135.
The Court noted that the government was not acting as
a sovereign in that circumstance but rather was acting as
a landlord of property that it owns, and invoking a
clause in a lease to which the tenant had agreed and
Congress had expressly required. Rucker, 535 U.S. at 135.
The Court acknowledged that the tenant may have had
a property interest in the leasehold interest requiring
due process before a deprivation of that interest, but
state laws provided for notice and procedures to be
followed. Id.
  Such is the case here as well. Henderson was a guest
of Alfernando, a Household Member. Although Stevens
could not control Henderson in a literal sense, he was
permitted on the premises by a Household Member, and
that is all that is required for control. Stevens received
formal notice of the lease violation, and HASB initiated
an action in state court to accomplish the eviction.
Stevens does not claim that the state court action
provided inadequate protections for due process pur-
poses. The First Notice was therefore lawfully issued, and
Stevens has no claim for emotional distress caused by a
wholly lawful action. Because there is no relief that the
court could grant her following her departure from the
apartment for other reasons, her claims based on the
First Notice are moot.
No. 10-2724                                              21

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text