Opinion
21-cv-466-jdp 21-cv-529-jdp
11-19-2021
VALERIE L. KREGER, aka VALERIE L. FLORES, aka VALERIE KREGER-MUELLER, Plaintiff, v. STONEHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, KASIE SETTERLUND, KRISTIE JOHNSON, RICHARD B. ARNESEN, HELEN BRADBURY, and JACKIE MURPHY, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES D. PETERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pro se plaintiff Valerie L. Kreger has filed two lawsuits alleging that defendants, real estate management company Stonehouse Development and its employees, failed to maintain her apartment, refused to give her reasonable accommodations, and allowed other tenants to harass her in violation of various federal and state laws. Kreger brings the first lawsuit against Stonehouse, No. 21-cv-466-jdp; she brings the second lawsuit against Stonehouse and several Stonehouse employees, No. 21-cv-529-jdp. She also seeks preliminary injunctive relief.
Kreger's lawsuits involve the same allegations against Stonehouse and its employees, so I will screen the complaints together, and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In doing so, I must accept her allegations as true, see Bonte v. U.S Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 2010), and construe the complaint generously, holding it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). 1
I will dismiss case. no. 21-cv-529-jdp because it simply repeats the allegations in No. 21-cv-466-jdp. Kreger's allegations in No. 21-cv-466-jdp fail to state any federal claims, so I will dismiss her complaint. But I will give her an opportunity to file an amended complaint that corrects the problems pointed out in this order. Kreger's request for injunctive relief will be denied because she has not yet stated a claim for relief.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
I draw the following allegations from Kreger's complaints. Dkt. 1, No. 21-cv-466-jdp and Dkt. 1, No. 21-cv-529-jdp. Kreger lives in an apartment that is managed by Stonehouse. She says that Stonehouse failed to repair her dishwasher, door, microwave, outlets, smoke detectors, showerhead, and sink, and waited three years to address a mold problem. Other tenants received new appliances while she waited for repairs. Some tenants have been permitted to park in handicap parking spots without a permit, but Kreger has not.
Kreger says that Stonehouse has been allowing other tenants to harass her. She says that someone has been poisoning her food, which has caused her to seek emergency medical care four times during the last six months. She has also found suspicious items near her car, including a snake, a mouse, and powder. Someone left a fireball candy wrapper outside her door. Her apartment has smelled like a pine tree. A silver Toyota Corolla parks near her apartment and followed her one day.
Stonehouse has refused to accommodate her requests to move into a different apartment. For example, in February 2020, she asked to transfer to a different unit. Open units were available on Stonehouse's website, but she was not permitted to transfer to either of them. In 2017, she saw two open units online and tried to apply for them, but the Stonehouse 2 manager didn't let her fill out the application and told her that the units were unavailable. Defendants Kasie Setterlund and Jackie Murphy, operations mangers at Stonehouse, each have two units. Stonehouse has told Kreger that it could end her lease even though she has nowhere else to go. She says that Stonehouse is mistreating her to force her out of her apartment.
ANALYSIS
Kreger alleges that Stonehouse and its employees discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), violated U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) inspection standards, and negligently failed to maintain her apartment. For the reasons explained below, Kreger's allegations do not state a claim for relief under federal law, but I will allow her to amend her complaint to clarify several issues related to her allegations of discrimination and to her state of citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
A. Preliminary matters
I begin with two preliminary matters. First, Kreger names Stonehouse and five individual defendants in No. 21-cv-529-jdp: Kristie Johnson, Richard Arnesen, Helen Bradbury, Kasie Setterlund, and Jackie Murphy. But she does not refer to Johnson, Arnesen, or Bradbury in her allegations, and her only allegations against Setterlund and Murphy are that they have two homes, so Kreger hasn't stated claims against any of the individual defendants. Without the individual defendants, Kreger's two lawsuits boil down to the same allegations against the same defendant, Stonehouse. I will dismiss No. 21-cv-529-jdp and direct the clerk of court to release Kreger of her obligation to pay two filing fees. 3
Second, Kreger alleges that Stonehouse has committed U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) inspection violations without explaining what inspection standards she means or how Stonehouse violated them. I will dismiss the inspection violation claim as well.
B. Discrimination claims
Kreger alleges that Stonehouse failed to make necessary repairs to her apartment, denied her requests to move into different units, and allowed other tenants to harass her in violation of the ADA and the FHA. Kreger's allegations do not state an ADA claim because the ADA doesn't cover privately rented apartments. Henley v. Am. Homes 4 Rent Properties Ten, LLC, No. 20-cv-05509, 2021 WL 1293831, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2021) (collecting cases).
The FHA allows a private cause of action for several forms of discrimination in housing. First, a plaintiff may bring a claim for discrimination on the basis of basis of several prohibited grounds, including race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. For example, it is unlawful to refuse to negotiate the rental of a dwelling, or to falsely represent that a dwelling is unavailable, because of a person's membership in one of the specified categories. Id. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Second, a plaintiff may bring a claim based on the failure to make reasonable accommodations that may be necessary for a disabled person's use and enjoyment of a dwelling. Id. Third, the FHA prohibits threatening, intimidating, or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling for discriminatory reasons. 42 U.S.C. § 3617; 24 C.F.R. § 100.400(c)(2).
Kreger alleges that Stonehouse has not allowed her to apply for available units, represented that open and listed units were unavailable, refused to accommodate her requests to be transferred to a different apartment, and repeatedly failed to make necessary repairs to her apartment while making those repairs for other tenants. But she does not allege that she 4 belongs to a class that is protected under the FHA or that Stonehouse is mistreating her because she is a member of a protected class. Her allegations are insufficient to state a claim under the FHA.
I will give Kreger a short time to submit an amended complaint that explains whether she belongs to a protected class and why she thinks that Stonehouse is discriminating against her on that basis. She should draft new allegations as if she were telling a story to people who know nothing about the events at issue. In other filings with the court, Kreger has represented that she is disabled. See, e.g., Kreger-Mueller v. Doe, No. 18-cv-708-jdp, 2019 WL 4256832, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 9, 2019). If she intends to rely on that ground to support her FHA claim, Kreger should describe her disability and how it limits her life. She should also explain the accommodations that she has sought and why those accommodations were necessary for her to use and enjoy her apartment.
C. State-law claims
Kreger alleges that Stonehouse failed to maintain her apartment. When a landlord contracts to make repairs but fails to exercise ordinary care in doing so, a tenant may bring negligence and breach of contract causes of action. Jacobs v. Karls, 178 Wis.2d 268, 275, 504 N.W.2d 353, 356 (Ct. App. 1993).
Before I can decide whether Kreger's allegations state negligence or breach of contract claims, I'll need more information. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, which means that they can entertain only certain types of controversies. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150 v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir. 2009). If Kreger amends her complaint and her new allegations state an FHA claim, I will exercise what is called supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. If Kreger's new allegations fail to state an FHA claim, 5 she will need to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court has diversity jurisdiction when: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; and (2) the parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Kreger says that Stonehouse is a citizen of Wisconsin. But Kreger says that she is a citizen of Wisconsin in her complaint for No. 21-cv-466-jdp and a citizen of Arizona in her complaint for No. 21-cv-529-jdp. Kreger has filed numerous lawsuits in this court; all but one asserting that she is a Wisconsin citizen. In her amended complaint, Kreger should clarify whether she is a citizen of Wisconsin or Arizona and why she believes that.
Finally, if Kreger is able to state a claim in her amended complaint and still believes that she needs injunctive relief, she may move for injunctive relief. If she moves for injunctive relief, she will have to follow the court's procedures which are available from the court's website.
ORDER IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Valerie L. Kreger's No. 21-cv-466-jdp is DISMISSED. The clerk of court is directed to release plaintiff of her obligation to pay the filing fee for this case.
2. Plaintiff complaint, Dkt. 1, No. 21-cv-529-jdp, is DISMISSED.
3. Plaintiff has until December 9, 2021, to submit an amended complaint. 6