Glover v. Bessemer, AL Housing Authority Order to Be Remanded to District Court

    IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o .  3 0 9 3  1

EVELYN GLOVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF 
BESSEMER, ALABAMA, ET AL,

E&cfendants-Appellees.

A p p ea l f r o m  the United  S ta te s  D is tr ic t  C ourt for the  
N orthern  D is tr ic t of A la b a m a

(Ju n e  9, 1971)

B efore TU TTLE, WISDOM, and  INGRAHAM , 
C ircu it Judges.

WISDOM, C ircu it Judge: This case  involves the  
p ro c e d u ra l p ro tec tio n s  to be acco rd ed  a  te n a n t befo re  
ev ic tion  fro m  a  pub lic  housing  p ro jec t.

E velyn  G lover w as a  re s id e n t for over e ig h t y e a rs  
in  a  p ro je c t o p e ra ted  by th e  H ousing A u tho rity  of B es­
sem er, A lab am a. M arch  17, 1970, M rs. G lover m e t w ith



2 GLOVER v. HOUSING AUTH. OF BESSEMER

M rs. V ines, th e  su p e rin te n d e n t of the p ro je c t in  w hich  
sh e  lived, a t  th e  la t te r ’s req u est. M rs. V ines sa id  th a t  
th e  A u th o rity  h a d  h e a rd  ru m o rs  th a t  a  m a n  w as liv ing  
w ith  M rs. G lover an d  h ad  fre e  access  to h e r  a p a r tm e n t; 
th a t  fo r th is  re a so n  th e  A u tho rity  w as going to  te rm i­
n a te  M rs. G lover’s m on th  to  m o n th  lease . The le ase  
hound  th e  te n an t:

N ot to a ss ig n  th is  lease , no r to  su b le t o r t r a n s ­
fe r  possession  of th e  p rem ise s; n o r to give a c ­
com m odations to  b o a rd e rs  or lodgers; n o r 
to  u se  or p e rm it th e  use of th e  dw elling fo r any 
o th e r pu rp o se  th a n  as a  p r iv a te  dw elling, solely 
fo r th e  te n a n t and  h is fam ily  as spec ifica lly  
reco rd ed  in  th e  te n a n t file.

M rs. G lover denied  th e  a cc u sa tio n  and  ask ed  fo r th e  
n a m e s  of h e r  accu se rs . M rs. V ines re fu se d  th is  in fo rm a­
tion, hand ing  h e r  a w ritten  n o tice  to v a c a te  th e  p re m ­
ises. The no tice con ta ined  no specifica tion  of reaso n s  
fo r th e  eviction.

M arch  31 M rs. G lover re q u e s te d  th ro u g h  an  a tto rn e y  
a  fu ll h e a r in g 1 on th e  accusa tions . The A u th o rity ’s E x ­
ecu tiv e  D irec to r re fu sed  th e  re q u e s t on th e  ground 
th a t  she h a d  a lre a d y  been  given a  h earing . A t th e  tim e, 
th e  A u tho rity  w as in su b s ta n tia l com pliance w ith  the  
ex isting  reg u la tio n s  of the  U n ited  S ta te s  D e p a rtm e n t 
of H ousing an d  U rb an  D evelopm ent (H U D ).' M rs.

'A  HUD circu lar, F eb ru a ry  7, 1967, d irec ted  housing  au th o ritie s  
to  in fo rm  th e  te n a n t “in  a p r iv a te  conference o r o th e r  ap p ro ­
p r ia te  m a n n e r” of th e  reasons fo r th e  ev iction  an d  give h im  
“a n  o p p o rtu n ity  to m ake such rep ly  o r exp lan a tio n  as h e  m ay 
w ish” . See  T ho rpe v. H ousing A u th o rity  of D urham , 1969, 393 
U.S. 268, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474.



GLOVER v. HOUSING AUTH. OF BESSEMER 3

G lover te n d e re d  A pril ren t. The A u tho rity  re fu sed  to 
a c c e p t th e  re n t and  de liv ered  a  second  no tice to v a c a te  
th e  p rem ises .

The H ousing A u tho rity  th e n  filed  an  ac tio n  fo r un law ­
fu l d e ta in e r  in  A la b a m a  s ta te  court. A pril 29, 1970, M rs. 
G lover found a  sum m ons to a p p e a r  in  th is  ac tion  ta p e d  
to  h e r  door. B efore th e  h e a rin g  on th e  m a tte r , M rs. 
G lover w as te m p o ra r ily  fo rced  to v a c a te  h e r  a p a r t ­
m e n t b eca u se  of flooding fro m  h eav y  ra in fa ll. D uring  
h e r  ab sen ce  th e  Housing. A u tho rity  h a d  th e  lock on 
th e  door chan g ed  so th a t  she could no t re tu rn  to h e r  
a p a r tm e n t. The A u tho rity  th e n  d ism issed  the  un law fu l 
d e ta in e r  action.

M rs. G lover sued  in  th e  d is tr ic t co u rt fo r an  in ju n c ­
tion, en jo in ing  th e  A u th o rity  fro m  ev icting  her, r e ­
fusing  to ren ew  h e r lease , denying  h e r  th e  opportun ity  
fo r a  fa ir  h e a rin g  befo re  eviction, and  m a in ta in in g  
se g re g a te d  housing  u n its .* 2 The c o u rt he ld  th a t  th e  A u­
th o rity  h ad  com plied  w ith  th e  ap p licab le  re q u ire m e n ts  
of H ousing and  U rb an  D evelopm ent D e p a rtm e n t re g u ­
la tio n s  and  th a t  th e  ev idence w as convincing  th a t  M rs. 
G lover h ad  v io la ted  h e r  le a se  by h av in g  som eone o ther 
th a n  a  m e m b e r of h e r  fam ily  liv ing  in h e r  a p a r tm e n t.3

2The d is tric t co u rt found  th a t  a lthough  “the  com plain t resounds 
w ith  allega tions of ra c ia l d iscrim ination , th e re  w as n o t a  
p a r tic le  of ev idence of any  d iscrim ination  on race, relig ion , 
o r an y  g rounds” . The p la in tiff  o ffered  no ev idence to  show  
d iscrim ination .

2Mrs. G lover testified  th a t she w as seeing a m an  nam ed  E lijah  
N unn, b u t th a t  he d id  n o t live  w ith  h e r  o r h av e  a key  to  h e r  
ap a rtm en t; th a t  th e  on ly  people liv ing  with- h e r  w ere  tw o
g ran d ch ild ren ; th a t M r. N unn  liv ed  a t  L ipscom b w ith  h is  
g randm other, and  th a t  she o ften  used  h is car. M rs. A lm a V ines,



4 GLOVER v. HO-USING AUTH. OF BESSEMER

T he co u rt also  concluded  th a t  if th e  p la in tiff h a d  de­
s ire d  a h e a r in g  o n  th e  rea so n s  fo r te rm in a tin g  h e r  
lease , she could h av e  h ad  one in th e  s ta te  c o u rts ;4 th a t,

m anager, te s tified  th a t she d id  n o t know  of h e r  ow n know ledge 
if  a b o ard e r  lived  w ith  M rs. G lover; th a t she  h ad  seen  Mr. 
N unn  in  G lover’s ap a rtm en t, b u t th a t  i t  w as a  g en e ra l p rac tice  
fo r  p eop le  to v is it th e  housing  un its  of o th e r  tenan ts . A  n e x t 
ao o r n e ighbo r of M rs. G lover, te stified  th a t  she h ad  n e v e r  
seen a  m an liv in g  in  M rs. G lover’s a p a rtm en t o r seen a m an  
w ith  a k ey  to  th e  ap a rtm en t. A n o th er neighbor, te stified  th a t  
she  nev e r saw  anyone o th e r  th a n  tw o ch ild ren  liv e  w ith  M rs. 
G lover. M rs. G lover’s d au g h te r te stified  th a t  h e r  ch ild  and  
an o th er g ran d ch ild  lived  w ith  M rs. G lover, an d  th a t no one 
else lived  th e re ; th a t she  h ad  gone by  th e  a p a rtm e n t each  
day  d u rin g  h e r  m o th e r’s absence and  h ad  n ev e r seen  a  m an  
in  the  ap a rtm en t; th a t she w as the  on ly  one w ho h ad  a key ; th a t 
on  one occasion she had  asked  M r. N unn  to help  h e r  m ove 
a piece of heavy  fu rn itu re  in to  th e  apartm en t.

T he d efen d an t called  fo u r resid en ts  of th e  p ro jec t as w it­
nesses. O ne s ta ted  th a t he saw  M r. N unn “daily  and  n ig h tly ” 
a t  M rs. G lover’s ap a rtm en t; th a t  h e  saw  h is ca r in  th e  e a rly  
m orn ing  an d  12:00 a t n igh t. A second w itness te stified  th a t  
she saw  M r. N unn  leave M rs. G lover’s a p a rtm e n t a t  5:00 A.M., 
com e b ack  and  leav e  again; th a t  she had  seen  M r. N unn  a t 
th e  ap a r tm e n t d u rin g  th e  day  w hen  M rs. G lover w as n o t 
th e re ; th a t she had  seen h im  e n te r  w ith  a key ; th a t  she  saw  
M r. N unn  th e re  365 days a y e a r  since she m oved in to  th e  
p ro jec t in  1967 b u t th a t  she d id  n o t know  if  he s le p t th e re . A 
th ird  w itness te stified  th a t  she h ad  seen M r. N unn  in  Mrs. 
G lover’s a p a rtm e n t “m any  tim es re g u la r” ; th a t  h is  ca r w as 
p a rk e d  th e re  ju s t  abou t a ll the  tim e b u t th a t  she d id  n o t know  
if  h e  ev e r stayed  th e  n igh t. M rs. Rosa N unn  testified  th a t  she 
w as th e  w ife of M r. N unn, th a t th e y  w ere  n o t d ivorced, th ough  
th ey  no longer liv ed  toge ther; th a t she had  seen  h e r  husband  
in  M rs. G lover’s a p a rtm e n t daily ; th a t  she d id  n o t know  if he 
sp e n t th e  n ig h t th e re , and  th a t  he p rese n tly  lives a t  L ipscom b.

4M rs. G lover contends th a t she  could n o t have litig a ted  th e  m erits  
o f th e  g rounds fo r  ev ic tion  in  th e  s ta te  co u rt proceedings. T he 
d is tric t court, w ith o u t c ita tio n  of au th o rity , h e ld  th a t  she 
could  h av e  contested  th e  m erits  of h e r  case in  s ta te  proceedings.

In  d e term in in g  w h e th e r  th e re  is  a  constitu tional r ig h t to an  
adm in istra tive  h ea rin g  p rio r  to eviction, th e  av a ilab ility  of a 
ju d ic ia l h ea rin g  w ould  b e  a  fac to r to consider. See Jo hnson  v 
T am sberg , 4 Cir. 1970, 430 F .2d  1125. A ny confusion a b o u t



GLOVER v. HOUSING AUTH. OF BESSEMER 5

in  an y  event, any  lack  of due p ro cess  w as c u re d  by th e  
t r i a l  in  th e  d is tr ic t court.

On a p p ea l M rs. G lover a rg u e s  th a t  she h a s  a  consti­
tu tio n a l r ig h t no t to  be ev ic ted  fro m  pub lic  housing  
w ithou t p rio r  no tifica tio n  of th e  rea so n  an d  a n  o p p o r­
tu n ity  fo r a  h e a rin g  in  w hich  she can  confron t h e r  a c ­
c u se rs  an d  p u t on ev id en ce  in su p p o rt of h e r  position. 
In  su p p o rt of th is  contention, M rs. G lover c ites  E sca le ra  
v. N ew  Y o r k  City H ousing A u thority ,  2 Cir. 1970, 425 
F.2d 853, an d  Caulder v. D u rh a m  H ousing A u thority ,  
4 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 998, as p e rsu a s iv e  au th o rity . T hese 
ca se s  ap p lied  th e  te ach in g  of G oldberg v. Kelly ,  1970, 
397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, to ev ic tion  
fro m  public  housing. G oldberg v. K elly  he ld  th a t  due 
p ro cess  re q u ire s  th a t  befo re  pub lic  a ss is ta n c e  p a y ­
m e n ts  m a y  be te rm in a te d  th e  rec ip ien t is en titled  to 
tim e ly  notice, a h ea rin g  w ith  th e  o p po rtun ity  fro con­
fro n t and  c ro ss-ex am in e  a d v e rse  w itnesses, a s s is ta n c e  
of counsel, and  an  im p a r tia l  dec ision -m aker.

th e  p re se n t av a ilab ility  of a p re-ev ic tion  h ea rin g  in  A labam a 
courts  m ay  re su lt from  confusion ab o u t p u b lic  housing te n an ts’ 
su b stan tiv e  righ ts. A  constitu tiona l re q u irem en t of a  due 
process h ea rin g  w ould  m ean  essen tia lly  th a t  pub lic  housing  
te n a n ts  no longer have m e re  m on th -to -m on th  tenancies, desp ite  
language of th e  lease agreem ents. R a th e r  th ey  w ould  have  th e  
r ig h t to  rem a in  in  pub lic  housing  un less th ey  b reach  reaso n ab le  
ru le s  o r no longer m eet th e  m eans req u irem en t. G iven  such 
a  red e fin itio n  of th e  te n a n t’s r igh ts, a s ta te  co u rt m ig h t b e  
w illin g  to consider the  g rounds fo r ev iction  even  though  it  
w ould  n o t h av e  passed  on th e  g rounds fo r  ev ic tion  if  th e  te n a n t 
had  on ly  a tru e  m on th -to -m on th  tenancy . See  M cQ ueen v. 
D rucker, D. Mass. 1970, 317 F. Supp. 1122, 1131 (W yzanski, J .) .

T his case does n o t ra ise  th e  question  of av a ila b ility  of s ta te  
ju d ic ia l rem edies because w e fin d  the  HUD reg u la tio n s d e te r­
m inative .







8 GLOVER v. HOUSING AUTH. OF BESSEMER

P en d in g  a  h e a r in g  in  acc o rd an ce  w ith  th e  ap p licab le  
HUD reg u la tio n s , M rs. G lover is en titled  to re in s ta te ­
m e n t in  th e  public housing.

The ju d g m en t below  is VACATED, and  th e  ca se  is 
R E M A N D E D  to th e  d is tr ic t co u rt w ith  in s tru c tio n s  
th a t  th e  co u rt d ire c t th e  B essem er H ousing  A u tho rity  
to  p rov ide  M rs. G lover w ith  an  oppo rtu n ity  to  be re in ­
s ta te d  in  a n  a p a r tm e n t in  th e  p ro jec t. I f  th e  A u th o rity  
is s till of th e  v iew  th a t  M rs. G lover v io la ted  h e r  le ase , 
th e  A u tho rity  m u s t com ply  w ith  th e  existing; HUD 
reg u la tio n s  (RH M  7465.9) p rov id ing  fo r no tice, h ea rin g , 
and  o th e r sa fe g u a rd s  befo re  eviction.

The costs on a p p ea l sh a ll be d ivided equally  betw een  
th e  p a rtie s .

Adm, Office, U.S. Courts—Scofields’ Q uality  P rin ters, Inc., N. O., La.