2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-26-2011

William Bell v. Pleasantville Housing Authorit

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1716

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"William Bell v. Pleasantville Housing Authorit" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 630.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/630
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1716

___________

WILLIAM BELL,

Appellant

v.

PLEASANTVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-04614)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 25, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 26, 2011)

_________ 

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

William Bell appeals the District Court‘s dismissal of his civil suit for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. We conclude that the District Court erred insofar as Bell‘s 

amended complaint, liberally construed and viewed in conjunction with his other filings 

below, contained allegations sufficient to invoke the District Court‘s original jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, we will vacate the judgment of the District Court 
2

and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

I. Background

In September 2009, Bell filed a pro se complaint in the United States 

District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Pleasantville Housing Authority 

(Pleasantville). Bell alleged that Pleasantville caused him to be dispossessed from his 

government-subsidized housing, and that the state court eviction proceedings did not 

provide him all the process he was due. In particular, Bell alleged that his eviction was 

premature, given that he requested a grievance hearing under applicable United States 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. 

Bell specifically cited in his complaint 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(l)(3)(iv), which 

provides that ―[w]hen the PHA is required to afford the tenant the opportunity for a 

hearing under the PHA grievance procedure for a grievance concerning the lease 

termination, the tenancy shall not terminate . . . until the time for the tenant to request a 

grievance hearing has expired, and (if a hearing was timely requested by the tenant) the 

grievance process has been completed.‖ (internal citation omitted).1 Explicitly invoking 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the basis for the District Court‘s jurisdiction, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

as providing the cause of action, Bell sought ―an order . . . enjoining the Defendant from 

 

1 ―PHA‖ is an acronym for ―Public Housing Agency‖ and ―means any State, 

county, municipality, or other governmental entity or public body, or agency or 

instrumentality of these entities, that is authorized to engage or assist in the development 

or operation of low-income housing under the [United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 

U.S.C. § 1437 et seq].‖ 24 C.F.R. § 5.100. The PHA in this case is Pleasantville.
3

removing and disposing of the Plaintiff‘s personal effects . . . from [his] former 

residence.‖ 

Pleasantville filed an answer raising twelve different affirmative defenses, 

along with counterclaims against Bell based on the following allegations:

Plaintiff violated the terms of the Lease, Admissions and 

Continuation Policy by vacating the apartment, without notice 

to the Pleasantville Housing Authority, for a period of greater 

than one month; by failing to respond to notices to appear or 

contact staff at the Pleasantville Housing Authority 

concerning his continued tenancy; by maintaining a primary 

residence at another location outside of the Pleasantville 

Housing Authority while still receiving federally funded 

benefits for housing; by subletting or allowing unauthorized 

use of the Pleasantville Housing Authority Unit to individuals 

not on plaintiff‘s Lease by making misrepresentations 

concerning his residency status for the purpose of gaining 

public benefit for which he would not 

be [otherwise] entitled to.

In January 2010, Bell filed an untitled document asserting against 

Pleasantville a claim of ―unlawful housing discrimination within the meaning of the New 

Jersey Law Against Discrimination . . . based on his physical disability and sex (male).‖ 

Significantly, Bell also repeated in the untitled document his original allegation that he 

requested and was impermissibly denied a grievance hearing by Pleasantville prior to his 

eviction. In addition, Bell alleged that Pleasantville denied him a reasonable 

accommodation for his physical disability, and that it ―did not take into consideration that 

he was attending the vocational rehabilitation program at NYU when they evicted him.‖ 
4

He requested an indeterminate amount of compensatory damages for his ―economic loss, 

humiliation, and mental pain and suffering.‖ 

The District Court construed Bell‘s January 2010 filing as an ―application 

to amend his complaint,‖ noting that at a March 26, 2010 status conference Bell ―advised 

the Court that he intended his [January 2010]  ̳Statement‘ to be his amended complaint.‖ 

The District Court granted the application and stated that Bell‘s January 2010 filing 

―shall be deemed to be plaintiff‘s amended complaint.‖ Although the District Court 

ordered that Pleasantville answer the amended complaint, Pleasantville chose to re-file its

answer to Bell‘s original complaint.2 

By order entered December 17, 2010, the District Court sua sponte raised 

the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction. That order read, in pertinent part:

IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT Plaintiff‘s only cause of

action alleged in his Amended Complaint is predicated solely upon 

state law; and

THE COURT FURTHER FINDING THAT Plaintiff‘s 

Amended Complaint does not properly allege diversity jurisdiction, 

in that . . . (1) Plaintiff has failed to properly plead diversity of 

citizenship . . . [and] (2) Plaintiff has failed to allege an amount in 

controversy that

exceeds $75,000 . . . .

In the same document, the District Court ordered that Bell ―shall have 30 

days to amend his complaint to properly plead his citizenship and state an amount in 

 

2 Three months later, Pleasantville moved to dismiss Bell‘s complaint, pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) & (d)(1)(A)(i), because Bell refused to be deposed. The 

District Court‘s resolution of this motion is not before us. 
5

controversy. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the case will be dismissed for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction.‖ Bell failed to timely respond to that order and, on January 24, 2011, 

the District Court dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bell 

then forwarded to the District Court a July 2009 letter communication to Pleasantville 

from Bell‘s attorney in the state eviction case, which concerned the attorney‘s attempts to 

―to resolve [the state eviction] case by way of a consent order requiring Mr. Bell to move 

but granting him a reasonable time in which to do so.‖ The District Court construed the 

forwarded letter as a motion for reconsideration under its local rules and, so construed, 

the District Court denied the motion by order entered February 2, 2011. Bell filed his 

notice of appeal on March 16, 2011. 

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

―Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure ( ̳FRAP‘) 4–in conjunction with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58–sets out the mechanism for determining when the 

time to appeal begins.‖ In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 454 F.3d 235, 240 (3d Cir. 

2006). Under Rule 58, every district court judgment, save those specifically exempted by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(1)-(5), ―must be set out in a separate document.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 

58(a). ―If the separate document rule applies, then both Rule 58(c)(2) and Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii) provide that the time of entry is considered to be the earlier of the date 

when the judgment is set out in the separate document or 150 days from the entry of the 

order or judgment in the civil docket.‖ Kunz v. Felice, 538 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2008). 

The Supreme Court has advised that Rule 58 ―should be interpreted to prevent loss of the 
6

right of appeal, not to facilitate loss.‖ St. Marks Place Hous. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dep‘t of 

Hous. & Urban Dev., 610 F.3d 75, 81 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Bankers Trust Co. v. 

Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 386 (1978)). 

The District Court‘s January 24, 2011 order is the type for which Rule 58 

requires the judgment of a district court to be set out in a separate document. Cf. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 58(a)(1)-(5). The District Court‘s order explained the procedural posture of the 

case and the reasoning supporting its conclusion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction 

(―Plaintiff‘s only cause of action alleged in his Amended Complaint is predicated solely 

upon state law‖), and the District Court included language ordering that the case be 

dismissed for that reason. In other words, there is nothing to indicate that the District 

Court‘s ―order‖ is ―self contained and separate from the opinion,‖ and the order language 

is not divorced from the ―reasons for disposing of the claims.‖ LeBoon v. Lancaster 

Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass‘n, 503 F.3d 217, 224 (3d Cir. 2007); cf. In re Taumoepeau, 523 

F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2008) (―A combined document denominated an  ̳Order and 

Judgment,‘ containing factual background, legal reasoning, as well as a judgment, 

generally will not satisfy [Rule 58]‖). Therefore, we conclude that the District Court 

violated the separate document rule, giving Bell 180 days from January 24, 2011, 3to file 

his appeal (until July 23, 2011). See LeBoon, 503 F.3d at 223; Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A) & (a)(7)(A)(ii). Thus, when Bell filed his notice of appeal on March 16, 2011, 

 

3 Bell‘s January 26, 2011 filing was not construed as one of the motions listed in 

FRAP 4(a)(4)(A), such that it could toll the time for filing the notice of appeal.
7

it was timely. 

Accordingly, we exercise appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo the questions of subject-matter jurisdiction implicated by the District 

Court‘s dismissal of Bell‘s amended complaint. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. 

Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163-64 (3d Cir. 2010).

III. Discussion

At the outset, we discern no error in the District Court‘s determination that 

Bell failed to sufficiently plead the citizenship requirement of federal diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Bell merely alleged in his amended complaint that 

he ―resides at‖ a ―Rochdale Village, New York‖ apartment; Bell‘s physical presence at 

the address of residence is but only one factor a court would look at in determining 

whether he is domiciled in New York. See Juvelis v. Snider, 68 F.3d 648, 654 (3d Cir. 

1995) (persuasive evidence of intent to remain in a particular location—the ―mental 

dimension‖ of domicile—―can include establishment of a home, place of employment, 

location of assets, and registration of car, and, generally, centering one‘s business, 

domestic, social, and civic life in a jurisdiction‖); see also Washington v. Hovensa LLC, -

-- F.3d ---, 2011 WL 2899598, at *4 (3d Cir. July 21, 2011, No. 10-2328) (―A party‘s 

citizenship is determined by her domicile, and  ̳the domicile of an individual is his true, 

fixed and permanent home and place of habitation‘‖) (quoting McCann v. Newman 

Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006)). The District Court invited Bell to 

plead additional facts in support of diversity jurisdiction, but Bell declined to do so. 
8

Nevertheless, we believe that the District Court should have exercised its original 

jurisdiction because Bell‘s amended complaint is fairly construed as raising a federal 

question. 

In reaching that conclusion, we emphasize that pro se litigants should be 

―held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.‖ Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 

552 U.S. 389, 402 (2008); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per 

curiam) (―A document filed pro se is  ̳to be liberally construed.‘‖) (citation omitted). In 

his original complaint, Bell specifically claimed that his due process rights were violated

by the absence of a grievance hearing prior to his eviction, and he cited 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

as conferring jurisdiction. Even though his January 2010 filing, later construed as an 

amended complaint, focused on alleged gender/disability discrimination in violation of 

the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, Bell repeated his allegation that ―around 

May 2009, he made a request for a hearing to [Pleasantville‘s] Housing Manager, Dawn 

Toscano . . . [and] was told he was not entitled to a hearing.‖ Furthermore, on March 8, 

2010, Bell wrote a letter to the District Court summarizing his case as follows: 

Pleasantville ―commenced a dispossess proceeding in state court before satisfying the 

legal requirements that must first be met . . . The present lawsuit stems from such 

improper conduct on the defendant‘s part [in violation] of the statutory and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights of the plaintiff.‖ Finally, Bell‘s January 26, 2011 filing, construed by 

the District Court as a motion for reconsideration, relates almost exclusively to 

Pleasantville‘s alleged failure to provide a pre-eviction grievance hearing, as required by 
9

HUD regulations. 

It is hardly a stretch, then, nor is it indicative of ―paternalistic judicial 

exception to the principle of party self-determination,‖ Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 

375, 286 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), to 

recognize the common thread running through Bell‘s filings: he believes his Fourteenth 

Amendment due process rights, and certain HUD regulations, were violated when he was 

evicted without a grievance hearing first being held. Such a claim ―aris[es] under the 

Constitution.‖ 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Brown v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 350 F.3d 338, 

341 (3d Cir. 2003) (indicating that district courts have original jurisdiction to entertain 

public housing tenants‘ claims that they have been evicted ―with little, if any, notice and 

no opportunity for a hearing, all in violation of their due process rights‖). We therefore 

conclude that the District Court erred in dismissing Bell‘s amended complaint for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction.4

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons given in this opinion, the judgment of the District Court is 

vacated and this matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

4 We reject Bell‘s claim on appeal that the District Court was obligated to appoint 

him counsel. Indigent civil litigants have neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to 

counsel. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) does provide that a ―court may request an 

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.‖ (emphasis added). The

District Court recognized as much, and in denying Bell‘s motion for appointment of 

counsel it considered each of the factors listed in Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153-57 (3d 

Cir. 1993), and did so in a thoughtful and thorough manner. We therefore conclude that 

the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bell‘s motion for appointment of 

counsel.