United States District Court, D. Minnesota
CALLOWAY COLVIN, PRO SE.
BRITTANY B. SKEMP, LAUREL J. PUGH, AND ROBIN ANN WILLIAMS,
BASSFORD REMELE, FOR DEFENDANT.
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brenda Calloway
Colvin's Motion to Reconsider the Court's June 28,
2019 Order and for an Extension of Time [Doc. No. 60], and
her Motion for Relief from Judgment [Doc. No. 66]. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motions are denied
and denied as moot.
facts of this case are set forth in the Court's June 28,
2019 Order [Doc. No. 59] (“the Order”),
incorporated by reference here. In brief, Plaintiff Brenda
Colvin first applied for an apartment at Parkers Lake
Apartments (“Parkers Lake”) in March 2018. (Order
at 2.) Prior to applying, Colvin informed the Parkers Lake
manager that she had credit concerns and was attempting to
expunge a prior eviction. (Id.) Because the prior
eviction appeared on her housing records, Parkers Lake's
automated tenant screening software initially recommended the
denial of Colvin's rental application. (Id.)
After the apartment's management company, Timberland
Partners, gave her application additional consideration, it
was denied. (Id.)
2018, Colvin successfully expunged her prior eviction, and
she reapplied to Parkers Lake. (Id.) In June 2018,
Parkers Lake approved Colvin's application for the rental
of Unit 1112, with a nine-month lease of $2, 085 per month.
(Id. at 3.) Colvin signed a lease agreement,
(id.) and she and her children moved in.
June 2018 through at least January 2019, Plaintiff reported
problems with the refrigerator in her unit. (Skemp Decl., Ex.
2 (Myss Decl.) ¶ 12 [Doc. No. 39-1].) Defendants'
records reflect that they responded to her complaints.
(Id.) In December 2018, Colvin filed an
administrative complaint with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (“HUD”) concerning much of the
conduct at issue here, including the alleged inadequacy of
Parkers Lake's response to her maintenance requests.
(R&R [Doc. No. 52] at 3 n.4.) Eventually, Defendants
replaced the refrigerator in March 2019, after a police
officer who had been in Plaintiff's apartment contacted
the Parkers Lake management office, expressing concern about
Colvin's children, who were without a functioning
refrigerator. (Skemp Decl., Ex. 2 (Myss Decl. ¶ 13).)
January 2019, Parkers Lake required Colvin to pay all future
rent with a money order or cashier's check, or a form
otherwise approved by Parkers Lake, stating that two of
Colvin's rent checks had been returned for insufficient
funds. (Id. ¶ 14.) Parkers Lake subsequently
commenced eviction proceedings against Colvin in Minnesota
state court, asserting that she owed $7, 502.67 in past-due
rent, fees, and other charges. (R&R at 3.) On May 20,
2019, the state court entered judgment for Parkers Lake, but
stayed the issuance of a Writ of Recovery of Premises until
May 27, 2019. (Id.)
eviction proceedings were underway, Colvin filed the instant
suit on April 16, 2019. She alleges violations of the Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601,
generally asserting that she received disparate treatment due
to race and familial status. (Second Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 6]
¶¶ 3, 14-17.) She then filed several motions,
including the motion for injunctive relief [Doc. No. 17].
Judge Schultz found that although Colvin sufficiently
demonstrated the threat of irreparable harm absent the
issuance of an injunction, she failed to show that she was
likely to succeed on the merits of her FHA disparate
treatment claim. (R&R at 5-6.) Accordingly, he
recommended the denial of her motion for injunctive relief.
objected to the R&R, arguing that the magistrate judge
failed to consider alternative forms of relief, her mental
health, and Defendants' timeline of repairs. (Pl.'s
Objs. [Doc. No. 53] at 12.) In the Order, the Court addressed
Colvin's objections to the R&R. The Court found that
the magistrate judge properly considered the issues that
formed the basis of her objections, as well as the factors
necessary to obtain injunctive relief. (Order at 5-10.) The
Court therefore overruled Colvin's objections and adopted
the R&R. (Id. at 10.)
12, 2019, Colvin filed the pending Motion to Reconsider and
for an Extension of Time, requesting reconsideration of the
Order, as well as additional time in which to submit
evidence. Five days later, she filed the pending Motion for
Relief from Judgment, along with additional evidence.
Defendants oppose her motions, arguing that Colvin does not
appear to have obtained the Court's permission to move
for reconsideration, and the newly submitted evidence was
previously available to Colvin when she filed her motion for
injunctive relief. (Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mots.
[Doc. No. 70] at 1.) In addition, Defendants assert that the
evidence in question is not relevant to Colvin's
allegations that Parkers Lake discriminated against her in
violation of the Fair Housing Act. (Id. at 2.)