FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13250 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 8 4 3 - C V- T - 2 7 - T GW P A T R I C K A C K E R M A N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D E A F A N D H E A R I N G C O N N E C T I O N O F T A M P A B A Y , I N C ., d .b .a . B a y o u C o u r ty a r d , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 26, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P atri ck A ckerm an appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on for a2

prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on agai nstD ea f a nd H eari ng C on nect i on of T am pa B ay ( “ DH C ” ) . I n h i s c o m p l a i n t , Ac k e rm a n , wh o i s d e a f a n d b l i n d , a l l e g e d th a tDH C vi ol at ed the F ai r H ou si ng A ct(“ F H A ”) and the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctw hen i tdeni ed h i s r e q u e s tf

o ra r o o m m a t e a n d d e c l i n e d t o r e n e w h i s l e a s e . Af t e rr e v i e w, we a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D D H C i s a non- pr of

i tc om pa ny tha tpr ovi de s c a s e m a na ge m e nts e rvi c e s f or deaf and h ar d-of-hear i ng adul t s. D H C ow ns and o pera t es the B ay ou C ou rtya rd A p a r tm e n ts , a n in d e p e n d e n t liv in g c o m p le x w ith p r e d o m in a te ly d is ab le d r e s id e n ts . A c ke rm a n ha s be e n a c l i e ntof D H C ’ s c a s e m a na ge m e ntpr ogr a m s i nc e 1998, a nd ha s l i ve d i n the B a y ou C our ty a r d A pa r tm e nt s s i nc e 2002. I n the s um m e rof 2004, A c k e rm a n , w h o w a s d e a f , w e n t b lin d . I n O c to b e r2 0 0 5 , A c k e rm a n ’s r o o m m a te m o v e d to a d if f e r e n t ap a r tm e n t to l i ve al on e. F or the nexttw o m on ths, A ckerm an fa i l ed t o p aythe ful l re ntthatw as du e f or hi s apartm ent . In D ec em ber 200 5, A ckerm an and D H C re ac hed an a g r e e m e n t w h ic h r e s o lv e d A c k e rm a n ’s p a s t- d u e r e n t, a llo w e d h im to r e m a in in t e na nc y f orthe r e m a i nde rof

hi s e xi s t i ng l e a s e ( due t o e xpi r e i n M a y 2006) , a nd en ro l l ed h i m i n a l o w -i n co m e ren tp ro g ram . In F eb ru ary o r M arch 2 0 0 6 , Jo cel yn E p p l e , a n o th e rt e n a n ta tth e B a y o u C o u r ty a r d Ap a r tm e n t s , m o v e d o u to f h e ro wnWe reviewa district cour t’s denial of a

preliminary

injunction for abuseof discretion. 1 Se eInt’ l Co smetic s E xch ., Inc . v . G a pa rdis H e alth&B e a

uty, Inc ., 30 3 F .3 d 1 24 2, 12 46 (1 1th Cir. 2002). The district cour t has a ra ng e of choice in re achingits decision, and we will not revers eunle ss t

hedis tric t c ourt

a pp lie s in c or

re c t le g al standard s o r p ro c e dure s, re lie s o n c le arly erroneous factfinding , or re ache s a cle arly unrea sonable or inc orre ct conc lusion. S ee Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1226 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 3 apa r tm e nta nd i nt o A c ke rm a n’ s . A c ke rm a n tr i e d t o gi ve D H C a ddi t i ona l r e ntf or E pp l e, bu tD H C re fuse d i t . D H C i nform ed A ckerm an that , because he w as part i ci pat i ng i n the l ow -i ncom e r entprog ra m , he coul d n othave a room m at e. In M ar ch 20 06 , D H C advi se d A ckerm an thati tw ou l d n otbe re new i ng hi s l ea se . O n M ay3, 20 06 , A ckerm an fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstD H C al l egi ng , i nt er al i a, vi ol at i on s of the F H A and the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct . A ckerm an cl ai m ed that D H C di d notr e a s onabl y a c c om m oda t e hi s r e que s tf ora r oom m a t e , w hom he n e e d e d to a s s is t h im w ith d a ily liv in g ta s k s a n d a s a c o m p a n io n to h e lp h is de pr e s s i on. H e a l s o c l a i m e d tha tD H C di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns thi m by notr e ne w i ng h is le a s e . Ac k e rm a n a l s o f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o ra p r e l i m i n a ry i n

j u n c t i o n a g a i n s tDH C r e que s t i ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha tD H C m a i nt a i n r e ne w a l of hi s l e a s e a nd a l l ow hi m the room m at e of hi s c ho i ce . A ft eran evi dent i ary hea ri ng , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed A ckerm an’ s m ot i on for aprel i m i naryi nj un ct i on . A ckerm an no w appeal s that de c i s i on. 1 I I . DI S CUS S I ON4

A d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y is s u e ap r e lim in a ry in ju n c tio n w h e n th e m o v in g p a r ty show s: 1) a s ub st ant i al l i kel i ho od of succ es s on the m er i t s; 2) a s ub st ant i al threa t tha ti rr e pa r abl e i nj ury w i l l oc c ur ; 3) tha tthe i nj ury w i l l outw e i gh a ny da m a ge the pr opos e d i nj unc t i on m a y c a us e the nonm ova nt ; a nd 4) tha ta n i nj unc t i on w oul d not be a dve r s e t o the publ i c i nt e r e s t . S e e A l aba m av. U . S . A rm y C orps of E ng’ r s , 424 F .3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A c ke rm a n c l a i m s tha tD H C vi ol a t e d the F H A a nd the R e habi l i t a t i on A c tby r e f u s in g to a llo w E p p le to b e h is r o o m m a te a n d b y d e c lin in g to r e n e w h is le a s e . T he F H A m akes i tun l aw ful t o “ di sc ri m i nat e i n the sa l e or r ent al . . . [of a d w e llin g ] to a n y b u y e ro rr e n te rb e c a u s e o f a h a n d ic ap ” a n d to “d is c r im in a te agai nstany per son i n the t erm s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges of sa l e or r ent al of a dw el l i ng , or i n the prov i si on of se rvi ce s or f ac i l i t i es i n con nect i on w i th such dw el l i ng , because of ahand i cap. ” 42 U . S . C . § 3 60 4(f) (1)- (2). T he F H A further de f i ne s di s c r i m i na t i on t o i nc l ude “ ar e f us a l t o m a ke r e a s onabl e a c c om m oda t i ons

. . . w hen such accom m od at i on s m aybe neces sa ryt o aff ord such p er son equ al op po rtun i ty t o u se and enj oy a dw el l i ng . ” 42 U . S . C . § 3 60 4(f) (3)( B ). T he R e habi l i t a t i on A c tpr e ve nt s di s c r i m i na t i on i n f e de r a l gr a nt s a nd p r o g r a m s a s f

o llo w s : N o o therw i se qu al i fi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a di sabi l i ty i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s , a s de f

i ne d i n s e c t i on 705( 20) of thi s t i t l e , s ha l l , s ol e l y by5

r e a s on of he rorhi s di s abi l i ty , be e xc l ude d f r om the pa r t i c i pa t i on i n, be de ni e d the be ne f

i t s of , orbe s ubj e c t e d t o di s c r i m i na t i on unde ra ny prog ra m or ac t i vi ty r ec ei vi ng F eder al fi nanci al as si st ance . 29 U . S . C . A . § 7 94 (a ). I n th i s c a s e , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e t e rm i n e d th a tAc k e rm a n c o u l d n o ts h o w a s ubs t a nt i a l l i ke l i hood of s uc c e e di ng on the m e r i t s of hi s unde r l y i ng c l a i m s a nd de ni e d hi s m ot i on f

ora pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on. A c ke rm a n ha s nots how n tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in its d e te rm in a tio n . F ir s t, m o s t o f th e r e s id e n ts a tthe B a y ou C our ty a r d A pa r tm e nt s ha ve one orm or e di s abi l i t i e s . I nde e d, A c k e rm a n ’s D ir e c to ro f H o u s in g a n d h is f

o rm e rc a s e m a n a g e ra r e b o th d e a f . I ns t e a d, the de c i s i on nott o r e ne w A c ke rm a n’ s l e a s e w a s be c a us e of hi s vi ol a t i ons of va r i ous rul e s . F ore xa m pl e , e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a tthe e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng s u p p o r te d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n th a t A c k e rm a n h a d p r e v io u s ly a g r e e d to forgo a room m at e i n o rdert o t ake a dv ant age of the l ow -i ncom e program , and that A c k e rm a n v io la te d th e te rm s o f th e ira g r e e m e n t b y f

in d in g a r o o m m a te . I n s h o r t, the e vi de nc e s uppor t e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha tD H C di d not di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns tA c ke rm a n be c a us e he i s de a f a nd bl i nd, buttha tthe de ni a l of hi s de s i r e d r oom m a t e a nd the nonr e ne w a l of hi s l e a s e w e r e ba s e d on hi s c ont i nui ng v io la tio n s o f

h is a g r e e m e n t. F in a lly , A c k e rm a n h im s e lf a c k n o w le d g e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th is ca se w as a “ cl ose c al l . ” W here a quest i on i s s uffi ci ent l y c l ose thatthe di stri ctcourt6

c oul d ha ve gone e i the rw a y i n i s s ui ng apr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on, “ the r e c a n be no abuse of di sc re t i on . ” R evett e v. Int ’ l A ss ’ n o f B ri dg e, S tructural & O rnam ent al Ir on W orkers , 74 0 F . 2d 89 2, 89 3 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ). I I I . CO NC L US I ON B a s e d o n th e f

o r e g o in g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g A c k e rma n ’ s mo t i o n f o ra p r e l i mi n a ry i n

j u n c t i o n , a n d a f

f i rm. AF F I RME D.