Free Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00152-JJF Document 3 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I FOR DISTRICT OF
DELAWARE
ISIDORE AND BONNIE CORWIN,
PLAINTIFFS, PRO SE
V.
r .. 5 I O
C.A. NO. ‘ T ’
B’NAI B’RITH SENIOR ET AL
DEFENDANTS.
|
PLAINT IFF S’ MOTION
FOR A
COURT—ORDER ATTORNEY
PARTIES:
ISIDORE AND BONNIE CORWIN, PLAINTIFFS, IN THEIR COMPLAINT AT THE U.S.
DISTRICT COURT AGAINST DEFENDANT B’NAI B’RITH SENIOR ET AL, MAKE
APPLICATION FOR A COURT-ORDERED ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIF F S CANNOT
ADEQUATELY REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN THIS MATTER.
COMPLAINT:
PLAINTIFFS FILED THE COMPLAINT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF DELAWARE, WHERE PLAHQTIFFS ALLEGE NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST HUD—SUBSIDIZED APARTMENT BUILDING OWNER/DEFENDANTS, B’NAI
B’RITH SENIOR ET AL.
I

» Case 1 :07-cv-00152-JJF Document 3 Filed O3/15/2007 Page 2 of 4
THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE DEFENDANTS
REQUESTING PLAINTIFF S AND ALL TENANTS AT THE SUBJECT FACILITY TO
REMOVE THEIR FLAGS PROMPTLY FROM THEIR PRIVATE BALCONIES, SIX (6)
MONTHS AGO, ON SEPTEIVLBER I5, 2006 (COMPLAINT, P.3, NO. 14) WAS A SUDDEN
SHIFT IN THE DEF ENDANT’S POSITION FROM PASSIV E ACCEPTANCE OF FLAG
FLYING IN THE YEARS 2001 THRU 2005 TO ACTIVE OPPOSITION OF TENANT FLAG
HANGING ON THE TENANTS BALCONIES AT THE SUBJECT FACILITY IN 2006.
AS EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMANTS, PLAINTIFF S BELIEVE, IN THE
COMPLAINT, THAT THE FACTS SHOW A PATTERN OF CONDUCT BY THE
DEFENDANTS WITH A DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT ON PLAINTTFF S, A NATIONAL
ORIGIN DISCRIIVIINATORY EFFECT, WITHOUT ANY BONA FIDE INTEREST
JU STIFYING THE TARGETING OF THE HANGING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG
BELONGING TO PLAINTIFF S, FOR EXCLUSION ON PLAINTIFFS’ BALCONY RAIL
(COMPLAINT, P.4, NO. 21), VVHILE OTHER SYMBOLS AND EXPRESSIONS ARE
FREELY ALLOWED TO BE ATTACHED TO THE BALCONY OR AFFIXED TO THE
BALCONY RAIL ON OTHER TENANTS’ BALCONIES AT THE SUBJECT PREMISES
(COMPLAINT, P. 4-5, NOS. 22,23) .
DESPITE THE DEFENDANTS’ RESPECT AND ADMIRATION FOR THE
AMERICAN FLAG, THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY THE
DEFENDANTS CREATES A HOUSING FACILITY DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT ON THE
PLAINTIFFS, VVHERE AND ACCORDING TO HUD RULE " STANDARDS OF HUD LAW",
HUD 24 ll 5.506 — 5.5I2, THE LANDLORD VIOLATES HUD LAW WHERE S/HE MUST
ENFORCE THE RULES OF TENANCY IN A NONDISCRIIVIINATORY MANNER AND
WHERE A LANDLORDS’ RESPONSE TO A VIOLATION OF THE RULES MUST NOT
DIFFER BASED ON THE PERSON’S RACE, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AND IS
WHERE THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DO SO IN PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO HANG
THEIR AMERICAN FLAG ON THEIR RESPECTIVE BALCONY RAIL.
THE PROF ESSED PAST LACK OF DISCRIMINATORY INTENT ON THE PART OF
DEFENDANT ROTAN IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A CLAIM UNDER TITLE VH1,
HOWEVER, THE REPEATED REF USALS BY DEFENDANT ROTAN IN PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTS, INCLUDING THEIR HANGING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG ON THEIR
PERSPECTIVE BALCONY RAIL, COULD GO TO THE ISSUE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
2

. Case 1:07-cv-00152-JJF Document 3 Filed O3/15/2007 Page 3 of 4
REASONS FOR THE FAIR HOUSING CLAIM:
I. THE FAIR HOUSING ACT ITSELF FOCUSES ON PROHIBITED ACTS. IN RELEVANT
PART, THE "ACT" FORBIDS "AN Y PERSON OR OTHER ENTITY WHOSE BUSINESS
INCLUDES ENGAGING IN RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE-RELATED TRANSACTIONS
TO DISCRIMINATE," FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE OF ". . .NATIONAL ORlGIN." 42 U.S.C.
§ 3605 (A). IT ADDS THAT "PERSON" INCLUDES, FOR EXAIVIPLE, INDIVIDUALS,
CORPORATIONS, PARTNERS}-IIPS, ASSOCIATIONS, LABOR UNIONS, AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS. § 3602 (D).
2. A HUD REGULATION APPLICABLE DURING THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD FOR
THIS SUIT PROVIDES THAT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING FAIR
HOUSING ACT VIOLATIONS MAY BE FILED "AGAIN ST ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTS
OR CONTROLS, OR HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL, THE CONDUCT OF ANOTHER
PERSON WITH RESPECT TO ANY ASPECT OF THE. . RENTAL OF DWELLINGS. . .IF
THAT OTHER PERSON, ACTING VJITHIN THE SCOPE OF (HIS OR HER) AUTHORITY
AS EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE DIRECTING OR CONTROLLING PERSON. . .HAS
ENGAGED...IN A DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICE" 103.20 QB).
3. IN TPHS CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE FAIR HOUSING
ACT IS THE EASIEST TO PROVE, FOR PLAINTIFF S NEED NOT SHOW UNDER THAT
ACT THAT DEFENDANTS’ DISCRIMINATORY ACT WERE DONE INTENTIONALLY
(RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD V. RIZZO, 564 F. 2D 126 (3D CIR. 1977), CERT. DENIED
435 U.S. 908, 55 L. ED. 2D 499, 98 S. CT. 1457 I 1978). THEREFORE, SINCE THE U.S.
DISTRICT COURT IS MOST INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT HOW LIKELY IT IS THAT
PLAIN TIF F S WOULD SECURE RELIEF ON THEIR NATIONAL ORIGIN
DISCRIIVIINAT ION CLAIM, IT NEED ONLY EVALUATE THE STRENGTH-OF THE FAIR
HOUSING CLAIM.
4. PLAINTIFFS ASSERT THAT DEF ENDANTS ACTIONS HAVE CAUSED NATIONAL
ORIGIN DISCRIMJNATING EFFECT ON THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE COMPLAINT IS
THE PROPER TOOL TO REMEDY THE UNLA\VFUL ACTIVITY.
3

, Case 1:07-cv-00152-JJF Document 3 Filed O3/15/2007 Page 4 of 4
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: I
,1 ééiéf /797 ;¢¢(7%¢`—~/
ISIDORE CORWIN. PLAINTIFF
B’NAI B’RITH SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX
APT 608
· 8000 SOCIETY DRIVE
CLAYMONT, DELAWARE, 19703
PHONE/FAX 302-798-5116
BONNIE CORWIN, PLAINTIFF
B’NAI B’RITH SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX
APT 608
8000 SOCIETY DRIVE
CLAYMONT, DELAWARE, 19703
PHONE/FAX 302-798-51 16
DATED: fig Zwji
4