Suella Debolt v. Michael Espy, 47 F.3d 777 (1995)

Citation: Suella Debolt v. Michael Espy, 47 F.3d 777 (1995)
Parent Document: Suella Debolt v. Michael Espy, 47 F.3d 777 (1995)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1995-05-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/689152/suella-debolt-v-michael-espy/ ↗

Full Text

944 chars

argued that the practices of HUD and the Local Housing Authority discriminated against minorities by concentrating public housing in minority areas and away from suburban areas. Id. at 1091. In denying the plaintiffs standing, we first noted that a plaintiff must show a likelihood or substantial probability that the defendant’s policies caused his lack of housing and also that favorable action by the court would cure that lack of housing. Id. at 1095. We then held that in order to demonstrate this substantial probability, a plaintiff must generally show that a developer proposed a particular project in which the plaintiff would have lived, but that the proposal was denied due to the policies of the defendant. Id. at 1097. Otherwise, a plaintiffs claim is based on nothing more than “speculation and conjecture.” Id. at 1096. Because the plaintiffs in Jaimes could point to no specific project, we held that they did not have standing.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text