United States District Court, District of Columbia
S. CHUTKAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
appearing pro se, has sued more than twenty
defendants for what appears to be housing discrimination and
other alleged wrongs. He has divided the defendants into
eight groups, and each group has moved to dismiss under Rules
8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For
the reasons explained below, Defendants' motions will be
“Civil & Criminal Complaint” is neither
“short” nor “plain.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a). He describes the Defendants as an “assorted
conglomerate of landlords, property management companies, and
/or credit reporting agencies, ” who “by personal
meetings and/or search of credit and legal actions . . .
committed alleged conspiracies/violations had actual and/or
constructive knowledge of Plaintiff's national-origin,
race, religion, age, to create terror-horror, intentionally
and forcing people to resolve their grievances, not by laws/
judiciary/ courts, but by violence.” (Compl. At 4).
to its core, the Complaint accuses the Defendants of a vast
conspiracy to discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff in
his quest to secure housing at several apartment complexes in
the District of Columbia under the voucher program governed
by Section 8 of the National Housing Act of 1937
(“Section 8”), as amended. 42 U.S.C. §
voucher program is described as follows:
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was created by
Congress under Section 8 of the Housing and Urban-Rural
Recovery Act of 1983, which amended the United States Housing
Act of 1937. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f (2006). The purpose of
the Section 8 program is to aid “low-income families in
obtaining a decent place to live and [to] promot[e]
economically mixed housing” by providing such families
with subsidies to enable them to rent units in the private
rental housing market. Id. The federal government
allocates funds to local public housing agencies through the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”), and the local public housing agencies
enter into housing assistance payment contracts with property
owners when the agencies agree to subsidize the rent of
eligible families. Id.
The [local] Authority is the public housing agency for the
District of Columbia. D.C. Code § 6-202 (2004). The
Authority is governed by federal regulations promulgated by
HUD, 24 C.F.R. § 982 (2004), as well as by local
regulations, see generally D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 14,
§ 8900 (2004). A participant accepted into the voucher
program by the Authority must be in compliance with the
requirements of the program, 24 C.F.R. § 982.551, and
may be denied benefits or have his or her benefits terminated
for non-compliance with any of eleven enumerated events[.]
Robinson v. D.C. Hous. Auth., 660 F.Supp.2d 6, 8-9
(D.D.C. 2009). A voucher participant's obligations
include the following:
(b) Supplying required information-
(1) The family must supply any information that the PHA or
HUD determines is necessary in the administration of the
program, including submission of required evidence of
citizenship or eligible immigration status (as provided by 24
CFR part 5). “Information” includes any requested
certification, release or other documentation.
(2) The family must supply any information requested by the
PHA or HUD for use in a regularly scheduled reexamination or
interim reexamination of family income and composition in
accordance with HUD requirements.
(3) The family must disclose and verify social security
numbers (as provided by part 5, subpart B, of this title) and
must sign and submit consent forms for obtaining information
in accordance with part 5, subpart B, of this title.
(4) Any information supplied by the family must be true and
24 C.F.R. § 982.551.
alleges the following relevant facts. On June 3, 2016, the
D.C. Housing Authority issued him a Section 8 voucher, which
would expire in six months, on December 3, 2016. (Compl.
¶ 45). The “payment standard [was] set at $1,
823.00 for one-/1-Bedroom.” (Id. ¶ 46).
On June 4, 2016, Plaintiff responded to Defendant 4000
Massachusetts Apartments' (“4000 Mass.”)
advertisement of a one-bedroom apartment. A leasing agent
showed Plaintiff Unit-901 and indicated that it was available
for immediate occupancy. (Id. ¶ 52).
“[U]pon promise of immediate move-in by the
leasing-agent, Plaintiff chose” that apartment on June
6, 2016, which, with a monthly rent of $1, 775.00, including
utilities, was “within DCHA rental-standard payment for
the area.” (Id. ¶ 54). Plaintiff provided
a copy of the Section 8 voucher “but still was asked
and forced to pay $70.00 (as non-refundable application fee),
and $500.00 (as holding fee)[.]” (Id. ¶
55). Plaintiff paid both amounts by two separate checks after
being “assured by the agent that he would be approved
and move in immediately[.]” (Id.). The leasing
agent, “interested to have Plaintiff . . . move in ASAP
and to finalize renting process . . . demanded that Plaintiff