United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Heather Meyers, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services,
Counsel for Plaintiff.
Dillon Whatley, St. Paul Assistant City Attorney, Counsel for
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David T.
Schultz dated February 27, 2018. Plaintiff objects to the
recommendation that the Court deny her motion for a temporary
restraining order, arguing the Magistrate Judge applied the
wrong standard in determining the likelihood of success on
the merits of her claim of lack of due process. Plaintiff
further objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that
she failed to show irreparable harm, because Plaintiff failed
to show she was being evicted. Plaintiff claims at this time
that she still has not found a job, it is unclear how long
her landlord would delay filing an eviction notice, and she
currently does not have sufficient income to pay rent.
to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review
of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule
72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court will ADOPT the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
does not object to the Magistrate Judge's findings of
fact, and the Court adopts those findings as its own.
Briefly, Plaintiff was notified by letter received on August
21, 2017, that her Section 8 assistance would be terminated
effective September 30, 2017 because she failed to report her
receipt of child support income from 2014 through June 2017.
(Comp. Ex. 1.) The letter set forth the bases for this
decision, and provided her until August 27, 2017 to request
an informal hearing to challenge the termination of her
envelope with the termination letter was a letter informing
her that she owed PHA $668 in overpayments, and a third
document that was a proposed Section 8 Repayment Agreement.
(Id., Exs. 2 and 3.)
second letter informed Plaintiff of a balance due because of
the child support payments that had not been reported and
explained that the balance represented a retroactive
adjustment to what her rent portion should have been from
June 2014 through June 2017. (Id., Ex. 2.) The
letter informed Plaintiff of the options available for
repayment, and warned that if she did not pay the balance or
enter into a Repayment Agreement, her Section 8 assistance
could be terminated. (Id.)
signed the Repayment Agreement, and sent in a monthly
payment. (Id. Exs. 3 and 4.) Plaintiff mistakenly
believed that if she met her repayment obligations, her
Section 8 assistance would continue. (Id. Ex. 5.)
She therefore did not request an informal hearing within the
time allowed to challenge the termination. Plaintiff's
Section 8 assistance was terminated on September 30, 2017.
her Section 8 assistance was terminated, Plaintiff continued
to pay her rentn from her wages. (Plaintiff Aff. ¶ 3.)
However, on February 6, 2018, Plaintiff lost her job, and
thereafter filed this motion for temporary injunctive relief,
seeking an order enjoining Defendant from refusing to
reinstate her Section 8 assistance.
Motion for ...