Housing And Civil Enforcement Cases Documents

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
     Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH R. JOHNSON; and DAWN
STOCKTON,
     Defendants.

___________________________

The United States of America alleges:

1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act), as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a).
3. Defendant Ralph R. Johnson is the owner of the Carriage Inn Apartment Complex ("Carriage Inn"), an apartment complex in Mobile, Alabama that has approximately fifty units. He resides in Mississippi.
4. Defendant Dawn Stockton was the on-site manager of the Carriage Inn from approximately 1996 to early 2000. She resides in Louisiana.
5. The Carriage Inn apartments are dwellings within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).
6. Since at least 1992, Defendant Johnson has had a policy and practice of denying apartments to black persons and families with young children. He had instructed the on-site managers of the Carriage Inn not to allow black persons or children to live there. The managers - including Defendant Stockton - carried out these instructions by, among other things, representing to black persons and to families with young children that no apartments were available when apartments were in fact available and refusing to rent apartments to black applicants and families with young children.
7. Defendant Stockton, during the time she was the on-site manager of the complex from 1996 through 2000, implemented the discriminatory policies of Defendant Johnson by refusing to rent apartments to black persons and families with young children and falsely denying to black persons that apartments were available while telling white persons of available apartments and allowing them the opportunity to rent the apartments at the Carriage Inn.
8. Defendants, through the actions referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7, have:
   1. refused to rent, or to negotiate for the rental of, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, a dwelling because of race or color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a);
   2. made, or caused to be made, statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or color, or an intention to make such preference, limitation, or discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c); and
   3. represented because of race or color that a dwelling was not available for inspection or rental when such dwelling was in fact so available, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(d).
9. Defendants, through the actions referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7, have:
   1. refused to rent, or to negotiate for the rental of, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, a dwelling because of familial status, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a); and
   2. made, or caused to be made, statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a preference, limitation or discrimination based on familial status, or an intention to make such preference, limitation, or discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
10. Defendants' conduct described above constitutes:
    1. a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights secured by Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; and
    2. a denial to a group of persons of rights granted by Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., which denial raises an issue of general public importance.
11. There are victims of Defendants' discriminatory actions and practices who are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). All of these persons may have suffered actual injury and damages as a result of the above actions and practices.
12. The discriminatory actions of the Defendants were intentional, willful and/or taken in reckless disregard for the rights of others.

WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court enter an ORDER that:

1. Declares that the discriminatory housing practices of Defendants as set forth above violate the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.;
2. Enjoins Defendants, their agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or familial status against any person in any aspect of the rental of a dwelling;
3. Awards such actual damages as would fully compensate each identifiable victim of Defendants' discriminatory housing practices for injuries suffered as a result of these discriminatory practices, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B);
4. Awards punitive damages to each identifiable victim of Defendants' discriminatory housing practices, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(B); and
5. Assesses a civil penalty against the Defendants in order to vindicate the public interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614(d)(1)(C).

The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

Document Filed: June 27, 2001. > >