Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bolar v. Hunter

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

May 4, 2017

SHELIA M. BOLAR, Plaintiff,


          Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge

         Plaintiff, Shelia M. Bolar, filed this case on March 7, 2017, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on April 3, 2017. The court now conducts an initial review of her Complaint (Filing No. 1) to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).


         Bolar alleges she is “an honorably discharged, decorated, service-connected disabled female African-American veteran” who has right-sided weakness and balance problems, resulting from a stroke she suffered in 1985, and mild bone degeneration in both hips. Climbing more than 4 stair steps allegedly causes Bolar great pain and puts her at risk of falling.

         Bolar alleges she rented a third-floor one-bedroom apartment from Silverleaf Investments and Joseph Hunter, the landlord and property manager for Oak View Apartments, on September 24, 2016, with the understanding that she would be able to move into a first-floor studio apartment in a day or two after a broken window was repaired in that unit. Bolar alleges Hunter refused her request to move down to the first-floor apartment on October 2, 2016, stating that Bolar was contractually bound by a 12-month written lease on the third-floor apartment. Bolar claims she has fallen several times and has experienced pain in her lower back, hips, and knees from climbing stairs up to the third-floor apartment. Bolar also claims the apartment is uninhabitable because of snake infestation in the ceiling, walls, and floor, a condition which Hunter has failed and refused to correct.

         In addition to suing Hunter, Silverleaf Investments, and Oak View Apartments, Bolar sues “various other unknown tenants, ” Does 1-30, for no apparent reason, and also sues the City of Omaha's Code Enforcement Unit of Planning Department for not taking “any meaningful or corrective action to cure said deprivation of Plaintiff's rights as a disabled person” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 10). Bolar does not state what relief she is requesting as against any Defendant.


         The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

         “The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.'” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).


         Bolar asserts her action “is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Fair Housing Act of 1988 as amended, as well as the Hate Crimes Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and upon the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3).

         A. ADA

         Bolar claims she was entitled to move from the third to the first floor of the apartment building as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This claim fails as a matter of law because Title III of the ADA, which prohibits disability discrimination in “any place of public accommodation, ” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), does not apply to residential facilities. Lancaster v. Phillips Investments, LLC,482 F.Supp.2d 1362, 1366-67 (M.D. Ala. 2007); see Indep. Housing Servs. of San Francisco v. Fillmore Ctr. Assocs.,840 F.Supp. 1328, 1344 n. 14 (N.D.Cal. 1993) (“[T]he legislative history of the ADA clarifies that ‘other place of lodging' [in definition of ‘public accommodation'] does not include residential facilities.”); H.R.Rep. No. 101-485(II), at 100 (1990) (“Only nonresidential facilities are covered by [Title III].”). Consequently, “apartments and condominiums do not constitute public accommodations within the meaning of the [ADA]. Indep. HousingServs., 840 F.Supp. at 1344; Moore v. Equity Residential Mgmt., L.L.C., No. 16-CV-07204-MEJ, 2017 WL 897391, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017) (“[A]partment complexes do not constitute ‘public accommodations' within the meaning of the ADA”) (quoting Arceneaux v. Marin Hous. Auth., 2015 WL 3396673, at *7 (N.D. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.