UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION

RONNIE JOE FORTE PLAINTIFF v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-57-CRS HOPKINSVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY et al. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Ronnie Joe Forte brought this pro se, in forma pauperis lawsuit. This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to

(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,

(2007). For the following reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s lawsuit. I. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS Plaintiff sues the Hopkinsville Housing Authority, now known as New Hope Properties, and Valerie Williams, a “Section 8” Housing Specialist, under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act) and the Fair Housing Amendment Act (collectively, the “FHA”). Plaintiff alleges that he applied “for an apartment after learning he had section 8.” He states that his application was denied “when they learned I had pending drug charges . . . I was denied on a blanket ban which deny me of housing based on my criminal history.” He requests damages and injunctive relief. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the instant action. See

(e)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

. Upon review, this Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B). When screening the complaint, the Court must construe it in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and accept well-pled allegations as true. Hill v. Lappin,

(6th Cir. 2010). And while a reviewing court liberally construes pro se pleadings, see

; Boag v. MacDougall,

(1982), a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” in order to avoid dismissal, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). III. ANALYSIS Under the FHA, it is unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”

(a). Plaintiff, however, does not allege that discrimination occurred on any of these bases. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied housing because of criminal charges pending against him. The FHA does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of criminal history. See, e.g.,

Robertson v. Olsen, No. CV 3:22-05276,

, at *2 (W.D. La. July 31, 2023) (and cases therein), report and recommendation adopted,

(W.D. La. Aug. 16, 2023); Smith v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., No. 1:22-CV-0788,

, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2022), report and recommendation adopted,

(W.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 2023); Nickell v. Metro., No. 3:18-CV-88-TRM-DCP,

, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. May 7, 2018) (“[D]enial of a rental application on the basis of an applicant’s criminal background is insufficient to trigger protection under the [FHA]. . . . Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants denied his rental application on any of the protected grounds set forth by the FHA.”), report and recommendation adopted,

(E.D. Tenn. May 25, 2018). Additionally, the FHA provides: [I]n selecting among applicants for admission to the program or to federally assisted housing, if the public housing agency or owner of such housing (as applicable) determines that an applicant . . . is or was, during a reasonable time preceding the date when the applicant household would otherwise be selected for admission, engaged in any drug-related . . . criminal activity . . ., the public housing agency or owner may— (1) deny such applicant admission to the program or to federally assisted housing. ] 42 US.C. § 13661(c). Plaintiff states that the pending charges against him are drug-related. For the foregoing reasons, the Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Date: November 29, 2023

Charles R. Simpson TIL, Senior Judge ce: Plaintiff, pro se United States District Court Defendants 4411.009