1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARMONIQUE HOPKINS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW 

v. Hon. Bernard A. Friedman

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

DEBORAH WILSON, in her official capacity 

as Executive Director of the FERNDALE HOUSING

COMMISSION, and the FERNDALE HOUSING

COMMISSION,

Defendants. 

_______________________________________________________________________/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION

INTRODUCTION

This is a motion for preliminary injunction to reinstate a Housing Choice Voucher 

issued by Defendants to provide rental assistance on behalf of Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s 

landlord. Defendant wrongly terminated Plaintiff’s voucher, alleging that Plaintiff’s 

neighborhood no longer passed neighborhood standards for Housing Quality Standards 

inspection simply because of a boarded up house in the neighborhood. (Ex. 1, Notice of 

Inspection and of Failed Inspection).

Plaintiff requested an opportunity to meet with Defendant Ferndale Housing 

Commission to review this decision and provided information that the home had boards 

on the window placed by the real estate company which was offering the home for sale. 

(Ex. 2, Letter Requesting Meeting and Reasonable Accommodation) (Ex. 3, Letter from 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 32
2

Real Estate Company). Plaintiff also requested reasonable accommodation to stay in the 

home, based on her disability and her adult son’s disability. (Ex. 2, Letter Requesting

Meeting and Reasonable Accommodation). Defendant denied the request for meeting or 

review and allowed Plaintiff only a few weeks to find alternative housing for herself and 

her family.

Plaintiff attempted to find alternative housing but could not find alternative 

housing within the short time frame. Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodation 

under the Fair Housing Act to be allowed to remain in her current home or to have 

additional time to find alternative housing, but Defendant denied this request and refused 

to meet with Plaintiff or review her request for reasonable accommodation. Defendant 

stopped paying Plaintiff’s voucher at May 31, 2014, and Plaintiff’s landlord now has 

begun eviction proceedings against Plaintiff and her family for nonpayment of rent. (Ex. 

4, Affidavit of Charmonique Hopkins).

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue Preliminary Injunction ordering Defendant 

to reinstate Plaintiff’s voucher, including back rent which Defendant failed to pay, while 

this matter is pending. This Preliminary Injunction is necessary so that Plaintiff and her 

family are not evicted and rendered homeless before this court has an opportunity to 

adjudicate this case.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff and her family have lived in the home at 7405 DeSoto in Detroit since 

the home was built in 2006, and Defendant Ferndale Housing Commission had approved 

voucher payments for the home beginning in 2007 and continuing until Defendant said 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 33
3

the neighborhood failed inspection in May, 2014. (Ex. 4, Affidavit of Charmonique 

Hopkins).

Plaintiff’s home is part of a development of new homes on Detroit’s west side, 

near Livernois and Fenkell, called Northwest Unity Homes II. The development includes 

about 90 new construction homes, including the home where Plaintiff resides, and rents 

are kept low because of support from the City of Detroit, the Michigan State Housing 

Development Authority and other partners in the development. (Ex. 1, Notice of Failed 

Inspection and Ex. 4, Affidavit of Charmonique Hopkins).

Plaintiff’s home is well maintained, the landlord/management company make 

repairs as needed, and the rent is reasonable at $580 per month. (Ex. 4, Affidavit of 

Charmonique Hopkins) and (Ex. 5, Photo of Plaintiff’s Home). Plaintiff’s portion of the 

rent has been $72 with the balance paid by the Ferndale Housing Commission to 

Plaintiff’s landlord through Housing Choice Voucher. Plaintiff and her family get along 

well with her neighbors, and many of her neighbors have vouchers through the Detroit 

Housing Commission, the Livonia Housing Commission, Taylor Housing Commission 

and other. None of these PHA’s have stopped rental payments or claimed the 

neighborhood failed Housing Quality Standards inspection. (Ex. 4, Affidavit of 

Charmonique Hopkins).

Plaintiff made repeated requests for Defendant Ferndale Housing Commission to 

review or rescind its decision that Plaintiff’s home failed Housing Quality Standards 

inspection because of a vacant home or building in the neighborhood. (Ex. 2, Plaintiff 

Letters, Requests for Review). Defendant denied all requests and refused to meet with 

Plaintiff to discuss the decision. (Ex. 6, Ferndale Housing Notice Denying Review).

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 34
4

Plaintiff also requested reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act to 

be able to remain in the home or to have additional time to find alternative housing. 

Plaintiff is a disabled person and her adult son who is a member of the household also is a 

disabled person. (Ex. 2, Letter Requesting Review and Reasonable Accommodation and 

Ex. 7, Plaintiff Request for Reasonable Accommodation and dated September 10, 2014 ). 

Defendant denied this request. (Ex. 8, Ferndale Housing Letter Denying Request for 

Reasonable Accommodation).

Plaintiff also requested a hearing on Defendant’s decision that Plaintiff had 

violated Family Responsibilities by requesting that Plaintiff’s other adult son be added as 

a member of the household. Defendant advised Plaintiff that she had ten days to request 

a hearing, (Ex. 9, Defendant Notice to Plaintiff). Plaintiff did request a hearing within 

ten days, but Defendant failed and refused to provide Plaintiff with a hearing on 

Defendant’s decision. (Ex. 10, Plaintiff Request for Hearing).

Plaintiff also requested additional time to find alternative housing because of 

medical issues and difficulty in finding any reasonable, alternative housing, but 

Defendant denied this request and stopped all rental assistance payments to Plaintiff’s 

landlord after May 31, 2014. (Ex. 4, Affidavit of Charmonique Hopkins) and (Ex. 7, 

Request for Reasonable Accommodation) and (Ex. 8, Letter Denying Reasonable 

Accommodation).

Plaintiff, Charmonique Hopkins, filed Complaint in this matter on or about 

October 27, 2014 and requested that the Court issue Temporary Restraining Order as well 

as preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 35
5

Charmonique Hopkins’ Section 8 Voucher and to continue making housing assistance 

payments on behalf of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has requested assistance from the Detroit Office of the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Detroit HUD office carried out an 

independent inspection of Plaintiff’s home and neighborhood and in conference with 

HUD in Washington, D.C. issued notice to Defendant/s that Plaintiff’s home did pass 

Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspection and that Defendant/s should reinstate 

Plaintiff’s voucher. (Ex. 11, HUD email). To date, Defendant still has not reinstated 

Plaintiff’s voucher.

On or about Tuesday, November 3, 2014, Defendant Deborah Wilson, Executive 

Director of the Ferndale Housing Commission was arrested and charged with breaking 

and entering into tenants’ apartments at Ferndale Housing in Ferndale and stealing 

prescription drugs from tenants’ apartments. (Ex. 12, Wilson Arrested). It is unclear if 

Deborah Wilson will continue as Executive Director while these criminal charges are 

pending or who will be in charge of Ferndale Housing Commission. In the meantime, 

Plaintiff, Charmonique Hopkins, and her family could be evicted from their home of 

seven years because of the actions of Ferndale Housing Commission and Executive 

Director, Deborah Wilson.

Plaintiff’s Landlord is commencing eviction proceedings in this matter to evict 

Plaintiff and her family, including her children, from their home at 7405 Desoto in the 

City of Detroit, Michigan for nonpayment of rent. (Ex. 4, Affidavit of Charmonique 

Hopkins). Plaintiff and her children face eviction and homelessness unless Plaintiff’s 

Housing Choice Voucher is reinstated.

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 36
6

LEGAL ARGUMENT

I. This Court Should Grant A Preliminary Injunction To Preserve The Status 

Quo While Merits Of This Case Are Litigated. 

The purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo between the parties as it 

existed prior to the controversy at bar, pending the outcome of litigation. City of Detroit 

v. Salaried Physicians Prof'l Ass'n, UAW, 165 Mich. App. 142, 151, 418 N.W.2d 679 

(1987).

In determining whether a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 

should issue, Michigan courts consider four factors: 1) the likelihood that the parties 

seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits of the case; 2) the danger that the party 

seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; 3) the 

risk that the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an 

injunction than the opposing party would be by the granting of the injunction; and 4) the 

harm to the public interest if the injunction is issued. Campau v. McMath, 185 Mich. 

App. 724, 728-729, 463 N.W.2d 186 (1990)(citing Michigan State Employees Ass'n v. 

Dep't of Mental Health, 421 Mich. 152, 157-158, 365 N.W.2d 93 (1984).

A. Plaintiff Is Likely To Prevail On the Merits.

1. Defendants failed to provide for a hearing before it terminated Ms. 

Hopkins’ voucher violating her right to due process. 

Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges violation of the procedural due process 

clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff’s participation in and 

receipt of the Housing Choice Voucher assistance is a property interest protected by the 

due process clause. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 

(1970). The Ferndale Housing Commission’s acts are clearly state action as a public 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 37
7

housing agency. See Burr v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth., 479 F.2d 1165 (2d Cir. 

1973). The 14th Amendment requires that pre-termination hearing be held before an 

impartial hearing officer if requested by the housing choice voucher recipient prior to 

termination of the subsidy. Stevenson v. Willis, 579 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Ohio 2008).

Plaintiff requested hearing or meeting based on Defendants’ decision that 

Plaintiff’s home failed Housing Quality Inspection. Plaintiff requested a hearing and was 

due a hearing on Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodation under the Fair 

Housing Act. Plaintiff timely requested a hearing when Ferndale Housing Commission 

notified Plaintiff that she was in violation of family responsibilities. Defendant Ferndale 

Housing Commission (FHC) denied all of Plaintiff requests for hearings and proceeded to 

stop payment on Plaintiff’s voucher and to terminate Plaintiff’s voucher without allowing 

Plaintiff a due process hearing in violation of the due process clause of the 14th

Amendment. See Hill v. Ypsilanti Hous. Comm'n., 09-13562, 2010 WL 3168440 (E.D. 

Mich. Aug. 10, 2010)

Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when they failed to provide a 

hearing before an impartial hearing officer, failed to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to 

examine Housing Commission documents, and arbitrarily and capriciously denied 

approval for her rental unit in violation of HUD policies. As a result of Defendant’s 

actions, Plaintiff and her family are facing eviction from their home for nonpayment of 

rent and will be evicted unless Defendant is ordered to reinstate Plaintiff’s voucher, 

immediately. Miles v. Phenix City Hous. Auth., 3:11-CV-216-WKW, 2011 WL 2580390 

(M.D. Ala. June 29, 2011). 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 38
8

Defendants failure to provide for a hearing also violated requirements to operate 

this federally subsidized housing program in compliance with the U.S. Housing Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 1437 et seq. federal regulations and their Administrative Plan. 24 C.F.R. § 

982.54(c). Before terminating Plaintiff’s voucher for violation of family responsibilities, 

Defendants’ were required to offer Plaintiff a hearing in front of an impartial hearing 

office, if requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff did timely request the hearing. (Ex . 10, 

Plaintiff Request for Hearing). 

Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s voucher without a hearing, even though Plaintiff 

did request a hearing. Defendants failure to provide an informal hearing to Plaintiff 

violated the U.S. Housing Act, applicable federal regulations and Defendants’ HCV 

Administrative Plan in violation of 24 C.F.R. § 982.54(c) and 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(a)(2).

Further, where the impact of the PHA’s decision will be to force the family to move or 

give up its voucher, fairness dictates that the PHA should hear from the tenants who will 

be adversely affected by the decision. McNeill v. New York City Hous. Auth., 719 F. 

Supp. 233, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). See also Orullian v. Hous. Auth. of Salt Lake City, 2:10-

CV-276 CW, 2011 WL 6935039 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2011). 

2. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights when it 

arbitrarily and capriciously denied Plaintiff’s unit for participation under 

the Housing Choice Voucher program.

Ferndale Housing Commission’s determination that the neighborhood fails the 

Housing Quality Standards and Plaintiff and family must, therefore, move goes well 

beyond the permissible scope of HUD’s Housing Quality Standards. The relevant HQS: 

Site and Neighborhood – uses “serious adverse environmental conditions” as it criterion. 

See 24 C.F.R. § 982.401(1). It is not plausible or defensible to conclude that one boarded 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 39
9

up building on an adjacent block meets this standard. It is irrelevant whether the 

Ferndale Housing Commission Administrative Plan supports its determination, because if 

it does, it is unenforceable because it conflicts with HUD regulations. See 24 C.F.R. § 

982.54. FHC inspector found a boarded up building near Plaintiff’s home, which FHC 

claims violates Housing Quality Standards. FHC’s decision was arbitrary in light of all 

of the conditions in and surrounding the home. The unit was newly constructed in 2006. 

FHC has approved the home and the voucher each year since 2007. Plaintiff’s home is in 

good condition, the rent is reasonable, the landlord makes repairs, and Plaintiff and her 

family get along well with their neighbors and feel safe in the neighborhood. (Ex. 4, 

Affidavit of Charmonique Hopkins and Ex. 5, Photo of Ms. Hopkins’ Home.)

More importantly, when Plaintiff complained to the HUD office in Detroit 

regarding the Ferndale Housing Commission decision, the HUD office investigated and 

went to Plaintiff’s neighborhood. After conferring with the HUD office in Washington, 

D.C., HUD issued notice to Ferndale Housing Commission that Ms. Hopkins home does 

meet HQS standards and Ferndale Housing Commission should rescind its decision. (Ex. 

11, HUD Emails)

A Public Housing Authority such as Ferndale Housing Commission does not have 

discretion to adopt policies and make decisions which contradict HUD regulations. 

Ferndale Housing Commission did not even inspect Ms. Hopkins’ home. She was home 

all day on the day Ferndale Housing said it would have an inspector there. (Ex. 4, 

Affidavit of Charmonique Hopkins). Instead, it appears Ferndale Housing had an 

inspector drive in the neighborhood on April 14, 2014, the day before the scheduled 

inspection, and issue an order that Plaintiff’s home failed the inspection because of a 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 40
10

vacant home in the area on April 14, 2014, the day before the scheduled inspection which 

never took place. (Ex. 1, Notice of Failed Inspection).

On information and belief the Detroit office of the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) investigated the neighborhood where Plaintiff resides 

and informed Defendant Ferndale Housing Commission that Plaintiff’s home and her 

neighborhood did pass Housing Quality Standards so that Defendant should not have 

terminated Plaintiff’s voucher for the home. (Ex. 11, HUD Emails)

Plaintiff and her children will be evicted unless this Court orders Defendants to 

reinstate Plaintiff’s voucher, immediately restart payments to Plaintiff’s landlord, on 

Plaintiff’s behalf, order payment of back rent amounts owing, and order a stay of any 

eviction proceedings until this case is completed or until further order of this Court.

SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), a preliminary injunction to reinstate Plaintiff’s 

housing voucher will preserve the status quo until this court adjudicate the claims. 

Plaintiff has shown that she is likely to prevail on the merits in this matter. If the 

temporary restraining order is not issued and Plaintiff’s voucher is not reinstated, then 

Plaintiff and her children will be evicted from their home and become homeless and face 

irreparable injury. There will not be harm to Defendant if the voucher is reinstated; 

Defendant will continue to pay its portion to Plaintiff’s landlord as Defendant has done 

each month since 2007. Further there will be no harm to the public interest if the 

injunction is issued, but there will be great harm to the public interest if Ferndale Housing 

Commission can continue with its policies of forcing tenants to move from good, quality 

housing in the City of Detroit because the housing is in Detroit. There will be great harm 

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 41
11

if tenants in Detroit who are in good housing with reasonable rents are forced to move 

because Ferndale Housing and its Executive Director do not want tenants who live in 

Detroit.

Plaintiff is serving a copy of this emergency motion on Defendants at the same 

time as filing with the Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court order as follows:

1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is 

granted;

2. Defendant is to reinstate Plaintiff’s voucher and to make payment, including all back 

rent owing, on Plaintiff’s behalf to Plaintiff’s landlord, immediately, and continue 

making this monthly payment until further order of this Court;

3. Eviction Proceedings are stayed until further order of this Court.

4. Any other relief the Court finds equitable and just.

Dated: November 14, 2014

/s/ Robert Day .

Robert Day (P44222)

Attorney for Plaintiff

613 Abbott

Detroit, MI 48226

313-967-5642

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 42
12

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Burr v. New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth.,

479 F.2d 1165 (2d Cir. 1973).......................................................................................... 7

Campau v. McMath,

185 Mich. App. 724, 463 N.W.2d 186 (1990)................................................................ 6

City of Detroit v. Salaried Physicians Prof'l Ass'n, UAW,

165 Mich. App. 142, 418 N.W.2d 679 (1987)................................................................ 6

Goldberg v. Kelly,

397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1970).................................................. 6

Hill v. Ypsilanti Hous. Comm'n.,

09-13562, 2010 WL 3168440 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2010)............................................ 7

McNeill v. New York City Hous. Auth.,

719 F. Supp. 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ................................................................................. 8

Miles v. Phenix City Hous. Auth.,

3:11-CV-216-WKW, 2011 WL 2580390 (M.D. Ala. June 29, 2011)............................ 7

Orullian v. Hous. Auth. of Salt Lake City,

2:10-CV-276 CW, 2011 WL 6935039 (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2011).................................... 8

State Employees Ass'n v. Dep't of Mental Health,

421 Mich. 152, 365 N.W.2d 93 (1984)........................................................................... 6

Stevenson v. Willis,

579 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Ohio 2008)........................................................................... 7

Statutes:

42 U.S.C. § 1437 et seq....................................................................................................... 8

Rules:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) ................................................................................................... 10, 11

Regulations:

24 C.F.R. § 982.401(1) ....................................................................................................... 8

24 C.F.R. § 982.54.............................................................................................................. 9

24 C.F.R. § 982.54(c).......................................................................................................... 8

24 C.F.R. § 982.555(a)(2)................................................................................................... 8

2:14-cv-13951-BAF-RSW Doc # 8 Filed 11/14/14 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 43