Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Heyward v. Public Housing Administration

United States District Court · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedureburden of proofapplication requirementstatutory preferencepublic housingdismissal after bench trialfailure of proof

Facts

The original complaint alleged that defendants administered Savannah's public housing program on a racially segregated basis and denied qualified Negro applicants access to projects designated for white occupancy, including Fred Wessels Homes. After the other plaintiffs dismissed, Queen Cohen remained as the sole plaintiff. The court found that Cohen had not been displaced from the site of Fred Wessels Homes because she lived across the street, not on the project site, and thus did not have a statutory preference under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1410(g). The court also found that Cohen never made an application for admission to Fred Wessels Homes or any other public housing project in Savannah.

Issue

Did Queen Cohen prove that defendants denied her admission or a statutory preference in public housing where she did not prove that she ever applied for admission and did not prove that she qualified for the claimed statutory preference?

Rule

A plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she applied for admission to the public housing project at issue and that she was denied a preferential right of occupancy to which she was legally entitled. If the plaintiff fails to prove those facts, dismissal is required and the court need not reach broader issues raised in the complaint.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Brooks sued the Riverbend Housing Board and a federal housing office in Birmingham, alleging that she was unlawfully denied a unit in Maple Court. At a bench trial, intake clerks testified that no application from Nina was ever received, and Nina could only say that she "spoke to someone at the desk" months earlier but could not identify the employee or any form she submitted.

Under the majority rule of this case, what is the strongest basis for judgment against Nina?

Explanation. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the threshold fact that she applied for admission to the project at issue. Where the evidence shows only vague testimony by the plaintiff and direct testimony from the proper application recipients that no application was made, the plaintiff has failed to make out her case, and dismissal is proper without reaching broader claims. (Derived from Heyward v. Public Housing Administration (n.d.).)