UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
ANGELENE HARDAWAY, et al., )
)
Plaintifi`s, )
)
v ) Civil Action No. 13-1232 (RJL/DAR)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )
HOUSING AUTHORITY, ) F I l- E D
) JUL 3 0 '201‘1
Defendant. )
Clark, U.S. Dlstrict & Bankruptcy
) courts for me mistrial m columbia

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Juiy?°/{:z:).(oii¢t) [Dkt. #15]

This matter is before the C0urt on the District of Columbia Housing
Authority’s ("DCHA" or "defendant") Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
for Summary Judgment [Dl<t. #15]. Upon consideration of the parties’ pleadings,
relevant law, and the entire record in this case, the Court GRANTS defendant’s
motion to disiniss.

BACKGROUND

"Angelene Hardaway has a permanent cognitive disorder" and allegedly
"needs 24 hours a day care to function normal1y." Compl. jl 13 (internal
quotations omitted). Her sister, Lena Hardaway, is her primary caregiver. See
z`d., Ex. (Health Provider’s Vcrificati0n of Need for a Reasonable Accommodation

l

in Housing, dated February 21, 2013) at 2. According to Jessica Coutner, M.D.,
with a reasonable accommodation-a two-bedroom apartment for both Angelene
and Lena-Angelene "can be well cared for, provide[d] safety[, and would have
the] ability to participate in program[s and] social activities." Ia’. Accordingly,
on February 22, 2013, the Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgo1nery
County, Maryland ("HOC") approved Angelene’s request for a live-in aide. See
ia’. at fl l3. In addition, on March 21, 2()13, the HOC issued a voucher for a two-
bedroom apartment. See z'a’. Plaintiffs sought a similar arrangement through thc
DCHA, see z`a’., which "operat[es] a public housing program and a Housing
Choice Voucher Program (f/k/a Section 8)," Mem. of Points and Authorities in
Support ofthe District of Columbia Housing Authority’s Mot. to Dismiss, or in
the Alternativc, for Summ. J. ("Def.’s Mcm.") at l.

According to plaintiffs, "[o]n May 8, 2013 and June 6, 2013, Angelene
made [rcquests for] a reasonable accommodation," Cornpl. at ll 13, which the
Court understands as a request for both a live-in aide and a voucher for a two-
bedroom apartment. Although the DCHA issued the voucher on June 6, 2013 and
approved plaintiffs’ unit on June 25, 2013, see ia’., plaintiffs received a "denial
letter" dated September 26, 2013 containing DCHA’s written response to
Angelene’s request for a live-in aide. According to the DCHA, the request was
denied for the following reasons:

In your request, you stated that you require a live-in aide due to your

disability. However, there was no documentation submitted with
your request to support your need for a reasonable accommodation.

2

Therefore, we contacted your healthcare provider Dr. Jessica

Lowther for information about your disability needs.m ln Dr.

Lowther’s response, she stated that you are permanently disabled,

however, you are able to perform basic requirements of daily living

on your own. As a result, your request for a live-in aide has been

denied, however, this determination will not reverse the decision of

the Housing Choice Voucher Program to provide you with a two (2)

bedroom voucher.
Def.’s Mem., Ex. A (Letter to Angelene Hardaway from Sherry J. Smith, lnterim
ADA/504 Coordinator, Office ofthe ADA/504 Program, DCHA, dated September
26, 2013) (emphasis removed). In other words, "despite the determination ofthe
Interim ADA/504 Coordinator," the DCHA allowed "Lena Hardaway[] to live
with [Angelene Hardavvay] as [Angelene’s] live in aide," Def.’s Mem. at 5.
Defendant represents that “[t]his distinction and notation of Lena Hardaway’s
status as a live in aide is noted on [Angelene Hardaway’s] Tenant Prol`ile as Lena
Hardaway’s relationship to [Angelene] is noted as ‘L’ which stands for live in
aide." Id.; see also z`a’., Ex. B (Tenant Profile) at 2. Plaintiffs moved into their

two-bedroom apartment in Northwest Washington on June 27, 2013. See Compl.

at ‘,ll 13. Roughly two weeks later, on July l2, 2013, plaintiffs filed this action.z

l The Court presumes that DCHA’s mention of Dr. Jessica Lowther in its September 26, 2013

denial letter, see Def.’s Mem., Ex. A, is actually a reference to Jessica Coutner, M.D.~Angelene
Hardaway’s healthcare provider, see Compl. at jl l3.

2 The date stamps on the front pages of the Cornplaint and plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to
Procced in¢forma pauperz`s, [Dkt. ##2, 3], indicate that the Clerk ofCourt received these
documents on July l2, 20l3. The Clerk of Court did not officially file the documents on the
Court’s electronic docket until August 9, 2013.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs bring this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. See ia’. at ll 6.
Generally, plaintiffs allege that the DCHA’s denial of Angelene’s request for a
reasonable accommodation-namely approval for a live-in aide-has excluded
them from participation in services, or deprived them of housing, to which they
are entitled. See generally z'd. at ll‘ll 16-67. Plaintiffs demand compensatory and
punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. See z`d. at ll 68.

"Articlc IlI ofthe Constitution strictly limits the federal judicial power to
resolving ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies."’ Dominguez v. UAL Corp., 666 F.3d
1359, 1361 (D.C. Cir. 20l2) (quoting U.S. CONS'l`. art. III, § 2). Accordingly,
"[e]very plaintiff in federal court bears the burden of establishing the three
elements that make up the irreducible constitutional minimum of Article lII
standing: injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability." Ia’. at 1362 (citing Lujarz
v. Defena’ers of Wz`ldlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The defect in plaintiffs’ pleading pertains to their purported injury, or
lack thereof

Nothing in plaintiffs’ Complaint indicates that the DCHA denied plaintiffs
access to or participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program because of
Angelene’s disability. Nor do plaintiffs allege that any action or omission by the
DCHA has otherwise barred their access to or participation in any program or

service administered by the DCHA. Notwithstanding the DCHA’s decision to

4

deny Angelene’s request for a live-in aide, it acted in accordance with the HOC’s
decision to provide a voucher for a two-bedroom unit. The DCHA thus
acquiesced to plaintiffs’ desired living arrangement. lndeed_, it has issued a
voucher for a two-bedroom unit, such that Lena can function as Angelene’s live-
in aide. Plaintiffs, therefore, fail to demonstrate that they have suffered any
actual injury arising from the DCHA’s action or inaction. Absent an actual
injury, plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their purported claims and the Court is
thus deprived of subject matterjurisdiction. See Ins. Corp. oflrelana’, Lla’. v.
Compagnz`e des Bauxiz‘es de Gul`nee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982).3
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that plaintiffs lack

standing to bring this action and the Court therefore lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss.

An Order consistent with this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

RICH~MQD J. LEoN

United States District judge

3 Insofar as plaintiffs claim violations of the Arnericans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act regarding their request for a voucher for a two-
bedroom unit, those claims are moot.

