IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TYRONE A. GOODWIN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.: 2:17-CV-01537
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Hornak
-vs.-

U.S. DEPT. OF HOUSING & URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, JANE MILLER,
CASTER D. BINION, Executive Director
Of Housing Authority of the
City of Pittsburgh, REGGIE SAMUEL,
Managing Director of Leumas Residential,
AISHEL REAL ESTATE, AND
HOMEWOOD RESIDENTIAL LP.
Defendants.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff, Pro Se, is a current resident of the Bethesda Homewood

Properties (“BHP”). This action is brought seeking judicial relief as the
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) has ended
a rental subsidy to Plaintiff’s low-income housing and in effect leading
to the Plaintiff’s moving. If not stopped, HUD’s actions will result in the
displacement and/or homelessness for plaintiff.
2. The BHP received rental subsidies from HUD pursuant to a projected-
based Section 8 contract. The project-based contract provides that
HUD will subsidize plaintiffs’ apartment so that Plaintiff pays no more
 than 30 percent income towards rent. HUD has unilaterally and
unlawfully decided to terminate the rental subsidy to the BHP and his
apartment.
3. HUD was required by law to use contractual abatement remedies to
bring the property into compliance. HUD failed to do this.
4. HUD was required by law to provide a notice to Plaintiffs and the local
government at various stages in the process towards its decision to end
the project-based HAP contract and allow Plaintiffs and local
government to participate in the decision of whether to terminate the
subsidies. HUD failed to do this.
5. HUD was required by law to consult with tenants and the local
government on continuing the rental subsidy after a feasibility study on
the rehabilitation of the BHP. HUD failed to do this.
6. HUD was required by law to provide written notice to Plaintiff and an
opportunity to be heard on the termination of the Section 8 contract.
HUD failed to do this.
7. HUD has provided tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers to
Residents of the BHP who move voluntarily, but these vouchers do not
guarantee housing for families and do not ensure that residents can
remain in their current neighborhood.
8. HUD was required by law to consider the 17,000-unit shortage of
affordable housing for low-income families in the City of Pittsburgh.
HUD failed to do this.
9. During the relocation, Plaintiff failed to receive mandatory relocation
notices. Plaintiff also was required, by law, to be referred to housing
already available for rent, instead Plaintiff received landlord listing of
housing not currently available.
10. After the rental subsidy ended, the Urban Redevelopment Authority of
Pittsburgh (URA) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to transfer the
subsidy to other rental properties. More recently, the BHP has been
sold to a new buyer.
11. HUD’s actions are arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and contrary to
law. Plaintiff brings this action under the Administrative Procedures Act,
5 U.S.C. Section 701, et seq. and Section 223 (c (2) and Section 223
(d) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, Due Process
Clause to the U.S. Constitution; a Bivens Claim; 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq. and the PA
Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, 68 P.S. Section 250.502.
12. Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination of the violation of laws by
defendants; preliminary and permanent injunction; compensatory and
punitive damages against defendants; and vindication of legal rights
under the laws of the United States of America.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 42 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), 28
U.S.C. Section 1331, 42 U.S.C. Section 3613, and 5 U.S.C. Section
704. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against HUD under
to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202.
14. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367
over the legal claims under the Pennsylvania Landlord and Tenant Act
of 1951, 68 P.S. Section 250.502.
15. Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania, under 28
U.S.C. Section 1391(b), because the events alleged herein occurred in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

PARTIES
16. Plaintiff Tyrone Goodwin, who is African American, resides at 7704
Tioga Street at the BHP. Plaintiff has resided at the BHP for fourteen
years. Plaintiff pays $25 per month for a one-bedroom apartment.
17. Defendant HUD is a federal agency charged with the administration and
enforcement of all federal laws and contracts related to federally-
assisted properties, including the BHP. HUD’s Region III office is
 located at Moorhead Federal Bldg., 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh,
PA 15222.
18. Defendant Jane E. Miller is the Region III Field Office Director of HUD’s
Multifamily Program Center. Miller is responsible for the Section 8
project-based programs in Western Pennsylvania. Her office is in the
Moorhead Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
19. Defendant Reggie Samuel is the Managing Director at Leumas
Residential. Leumas Residential is HUD’s relocation contractor. His
office is located at 1125 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 400,
Fredericksburg, VA 22401.
20. Defendant Caster D. Binion is the Executive Director of the Housing
Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (“HACP”). The HACP is the Public
Housing Authority (PHA) created and authorized by state law to
develop and operate low-income housing in Pittsburgh. The HACP
enters into an Annual Contributions Contract with HUD to administer
the program requirements. The HACP must ensure compliance with
federal laws, regulations and notices and must establish policy and
procedures to clarify federal requirements and to ensure consistency in
program operation. 1 The executive director is responsible for ensuring
compliance with federal and state laws and directives for the programs
managed. 2 Their office is located at 100 Ross Street, 4th Floor,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
21. Defendant Aishel Real Estate manages HUD project based Section 8
housing, including the BHP. Aishel Real Estate is located at 224 Penn
Avenue, Suite 3B Pittsburgh, PA 15221.

1
Nan McKay & Associations, HACP Housing Choice Voucher Program (Formerly known as
Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance): Administrative Plan, Effective 7/27/17, pg. 1-1.
2
Ibid, pg. 1-2.
 22. Defendant Homewood Residential LP is owned by Michael Lehrer. The
office is located at 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2500, Long Island, NY
10176.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Section 8 Housing Program

23. Congress created the Section 8 program in the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 that supplemented the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937. 42 U.S.C. §1437. The Section 8 program provides
decent, affordable housing to low-income families. Unlike public
housing owned and operated by public housing agencies (PHA),
project-based section 8 housing is generally owned and operated by
private owners.
24. Through the Section 8 program, low-income tenants pay 30% of their
adjusted incomes as rent and HUD provides a subsidy to pay the
difference between the tenant’s payment and the owner’s rent. 42
U.S.C. §§1437f(c) (3), 1437a (a) (1).
25. Section 8 programs are either project-based or tenant-based. Under the
project-based programs, the subsidy is provided under a contract that is
typically between HUD and the landlord and the subsidy remains with
the building when the tenant moves.
26. Under the tenant-based programs (Called the “Housing Choice
Vouchers”), HUD provides funds to local public housing authorities
(PHA’s) that enter into contracts with private rental property owners. 42
U.S.C. §1437f (o). Eligible low-income tenants receive a voucher that is
meant to enable them to request landlords to enter into contracts with
the PHA on their behalf. The rental subsidy follows the tenant when the
tenant moves to a different unit. Tenant-based programs rely on both
an adequate supply of housing and a number of landlords who agree to
participate in the program.
 27. HUD publishes the Resident Rights & Responsibilities which inform
tenants of their rights and duties. It states, in relevant part:
Residents have the right to participate in or be notified of,
and comment on, the following: non-renewal of a project-
based Section 8 contract, and any other action which
could ultimately lead to involuntary temporary or
permanent relocation of residents.

The Due Process Clause of the U. S. Constitution

28. Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected property interest in his
continued tenancy at the BHP. Pursuant to the 5th Amendment of the U.
S. Constitution, Plaintiff is entitled to notice and the opportunity to be
heard, prior to any deprivation of such protected property interest.

Relocation Assistance
29. The Uniform Act “ensures[s] that persons displaced as a direct result of
Federal or federally-assisted projects are treated fairly, consistently,
and equitably so that such displaced persons will not suffer
disproportionate injuries…” Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 [Public Law 91-646; 84 Stat.
1894], 42 U.S.C. 4601, et. seq.
30. Displaced persons are protected by the mandatory relocation notices –
General Information Notice (GIN), Notice of Relocation Eligibility, and
the 90-Day Notice - sent first-class, certified mail with return receipt
requested. 49 CFR 24.203. In addition, HUD issues the Relocation
Assistance to Tenants Displaced from Their Homes (HUD 1042-CDP).
Displaced persons are referred to at least three comparable
replacement dwellings, or at least one in case of threat to health and
safety. Comparable replacement dwelling is defined as housing
currently available to the displaced person on the private market. 49
CFR 24.2(a) (6) (vii). The Uniform Act also provides a notice of appeal
rules. 49 CFR 24.10. The displaced person also must be advised of
their rights under the Fair Housing Act. 42. U.S.C. 3601-19.
The Fair Housing Act
31. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“The Fair Housing Act”), 42
U.S.C. §§3601 et seq., provides that it shall be unlawful “to make
unavailable or deny a dwelling unit to any person because of race,
color, religion, sex familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.
§3604(a). HUD may not intentionally, or by the effect of its actions,
engage in discrimination contrary to the Fair Housing Act.
32. HUD has a duty to administer programs and activities relating to
housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively that furthers
fair housing. 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e) (5).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The BHP: Affordable Housing Resource in the City of Pittsburgh

33. The BHP is owned by Homewood Residential LP, of Long Island, N.Y.,
and locally managed by Aishel Real Estate, of Wilkinsburg, PA. 3 It has
141 housing units located throughout Pittsburgh, PA. The area is
located in communities in close proximity to important amenities such
as quality schools, recreation centers, public transportation, and
employment centers.
34. The BHP has been subsidized by a project-based contract through
Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1437f. The
project-based contract provides a monthly rental subsidy of
approximately $109,293, also known as housing assistance payment
(“HAP”).
35. Residents are low-income individuals, qualified to receive rent subsidies
through the project-based Section 8 program, 42 U.S.C. 1437f. Through
the program, each resident household pays 30% of their adjusted

3
Bethesda Homewood sold Homewood Residential LP the apartment building at 7704-7706
Tioga Street, where Plaintiff resides, for $2.4 million on January 18, 2006, according to the
Allegheny County Real Estate Portal. These apartment buildings were erected in 1955.
 monthly income to the owner for their rent. HUD pays the remaining
cost of the rent to the owner. HUD pays a utility allowance to the owner
and so this housing expense is included in the rent.
36. Plaintiff’s lease will terminate automatically if the Section 8 contract
ends for any reason.

Management agent failures and a lack of oversight of Owner and HUD

result in need for major repairs and the health and safety issues

37. The owner is required to maintain the BHP in “decent, safe, and
sanitary” conditions and to comply with applicable state and local laws
relating to the physical condition of the property.
38. On April 9, 2014, the BHP had a failing inspection score of 35 out of
100 points. The absentee owner failed to provide routine maintenance.
39. From February to August of 2017, Plaintiff complained to Defendant
Miller and Resolution Specialist Rita J. DeMarco, of HUD, and the
management agent of criminal activities at the BHP. These complaints
(with photos and videos) included nonresidents leaving drug
paraphernalia, used condoms (Trojans), and cigarette butts in the
hallway; and used drug syringe discovered in hallway. No action was
taken to remedy these criminal activities.
40. About February 17, 2017, HUD mailed a Compliance, Disposition and
Enforcement (CDE) Plan that required, inter alia, that the owner hire a
HUD-approved management agent to assume management of the
properties and to fix all the physical deficiencies. 4 HUD, again, failed to
take enforcement action against the owner.
41. By this time, the BHP needed repairs due to years of deferred
maintenance and lack of capital improvements.

4
Resolution Specialist Rita DeMarco, Notice of Compliance, Disposition and Enforcement (CDE)
Plan: For Bethesda Homewood Properties (Contract Number: PA 28E000006).
 42. On July 13, 2017, the BHP failed the inspection with a score with 15 on
a scale of 1 to 100 points with 130 health and safety deficiencies. 5
HUD, again, failed to use a myriad of enforcement mechanism to bring
the owner into compliance.
43. HUD failed to provide BHP residents and the local government with a
copy of the REAC Inspection Report, the Notice of Default, or any
information about the nature of the health and safety concerns identified
in the July 2017 Inspection Report.

Miller ignored “mandatory contract renewal” provisions

44. Defendant Miller failed to consider the successful use of tenant-based

Housing Choice Voucher before ending the HAP contract.
45. “David Weber, chief operations officer of the Housing Authority of the
City of Pittsburgh, estimates that only 25 to 30 percent of the agency’s
voucher recipients find a landlord willing to take [the Housing Choice
Voucher]”. 6
46. The Housing Choice Voucher is not a guaranteed to finding a suitable
home. Landlords are not required to accept vouchers.
47. Most landlords require tenants to pay for utilities. Yet, utilities are paid
by an allowance by HUD at the BHP.

Shortage of the Availability of Suitable Housing

48. Defendant Miller has the final sign-off authority for the contract
termination. Miller must consider the availability of relocation monies
and suitable housing before terminating any rental contract. 7

5
Samuel Tuffour, Program Manager, Real Estate Assessment Center, letter, July 13, 2017.
6
Nick Keppler, “How housing vouchers and ‘Section 8’ stigma fail Pittsburgh’s neediest
households,” PUBLICSOURCE, June 8, 2017.
7
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Processes and Procedures For Contract
Administration of Project Based Section 8 Housing, February 2002, DRAFT, pg. 2.1.9.
 49. HUD describes the rental housing market in the Allegheny County
submarket, including the City of Pittsburgh, as “slightly soft” with a
vacancy rate of 7.5 percent. 8
50. The city’s Affordable Housing Task Force reported a 17,000-unit
shortage of affordable housing for low-income families. 9

Due Process Violations

HUD changed agenda for Tenant Meeting

51. Within ninety (90) days prior to termination, HUD must organize tenant
meetings related to the upcoming termination. 10 HUD failed to conduct
this tenant meeting.
52. HUD hired Leumas Residential, of Virginia, who had no experience in
the Pittsburgh rental housing market.
53. On September 29, 2017, HUD mailed a Notice of voluntary relocation
for tenants that chose to move. 11 This notice made no mention of the
termination (or suspension) of the HAP contract.
54. On October 11, 2017, Defendant Miller introduced tenants to Leumas
Residential and the HACP at the Homewood YMCA in Pittsburgh, PA.
55. Leumas Residential replaced the mandatory notices with its Relocation
Newsletter 12 and the BHP Frequently Asked Questions.
56. Plaintiff did not receive HUD’s Relocation Assistance for Tenants
Displaced From Their Home.

8
HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, “Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis:
Pittsburgh, PA”, July 1, 2016, page 11.
9
R. Daniel Lavelle and Raymond W. Gastil, “Affordable Housing Task Force Findings and
Recommendations to Mayor William Peduto and the Pittsburgh City Council”, May 2016.
10
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, DRAFT Processes and Procedures For
Contract Administration of Project Based Section 8 Housing, February 2002, pg. 2.1.9.
11
Director, Property Disposition Division, Jovanna M. Morales, Notice of Tenants’ Meeting,
September 29, 2017.
12
Leumas Residential, Relocation Newsletter: Bethesda Homewood Properties, October 11,
2017.
 No Written Notice by HUD
57. On November 1, 2017, HUD ended the HAP contract, according to the
Oct. 27th letter of Aishel Real Estate. 13
58. HUD failed to follow its own policy. The Section 8 Renewal Policy
states, in relevant part:
“The Regional Center or Satellite Office shall notify, in
writing, all tenants in a project who are receiving Section 8
assistance, of HUD’s decision not to renew the project’s
Section 8 contract.” 14

59. On October 27, 2017, Aishel Real Estate writes “As you are aware,
effective November 1, 2017, HUD is ending the HAP subsidy to the
property” 15 . Based on this letter, local newspaper accounts, the URA’s
Request for Proposal, and belief, this was HUD’s final agency action.
60. On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Miller on the failure of a written
notice and the opportunity to be heard. One month later, December 11,
2017, Miller responded with no comment due to this litigation.

Plaintiff Denied Rights under the Uniform Act

61. Once vouchers are approved, the PHA (HACP) is responsible for
issuing the HCV. 16 The HACP waived the unusual waiting list due to
the relocation. HACP failed to follow the relocation requirements for
this target funding category, relocation, according to the HACP’s
Administrative Plan.
62. On November 11, 2017, HCV Dept. Director Heather T. Gaines issued
Plaintiff a Housing Choice Voucher, which expires on 3/18/18.

13
The Housing Assistance Payment contract states, “The Owner shall promptly notify the Family
of such abatement”.
14
Section 8 Renewal Policy: Guidance for the Renewal of Project Based Section 8 HAP
Contracts, Effective July 28, 2017, page 13-4.
15
Aishel Real Estate, Bethesda Homewood Properties: Notice To All Tenants, October 27, 2017.
16
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, DRAFT Processes and Procedures For
Contract Administration of Project Based Section 8 Housing, February 2002, pg. 2.1.9.
 63. The eligibility for relocation assistance portrayed by HUD’s relocation
contractor (no on-site move) conflicts with the Notice of Relocation
Eligibility provisions.
64. The BHP Frequently Asked Question’s Problem/Special Needs fails to
advise Plaintiff of his legal rights under the Uniform Act or the Fair
Housing Act.
65. Each landlord listings of the HACP and Leumas Residential, developed
from the HACP listings, does not comply with comparable replacement
dwellings. See HUD’s Relocation Assistance for Tenants Displaced
from Their Homes.
66. “Jerome Jackson, executive director of Operation Better Block…, said
his staff worked through the list and found many properties did not
accept Section 8 vouchers or else had a waiting list”. 17 A few, he said,
“were known slumlords.” 18
67. HACP Policy states, “The HACP will complete the initial inspection,
determine whether the unit satisfies HQS, and notify the owner and the
family of the determination within 15 days of submission of the Request
for Tenancy Approval (RTA)”. 19
68. To date, Plaintiff has not received any referrals to comparable
replacement housing from either the HACP or HUD’s relocation
contractor.

CURRENT STATUS OF THE BHP

City supports Residents on BHP Rehabilitation

69. “The city supports efforts by residents and their legal counsel to
address the conditions of these properties and keep them in place if

17
Mark Kramer, “Instead of preparing for an unwanted move, this Bethesda-Homewood resident
prepared a federal lawsuit”, PublicSource, February 13, 2018.
18
Ibid.
19
Nan McKay & Associations, HACP Housing Choice Voucher Program (Formerly known as
Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance): Administrative Plan, Effective 7/27/17, pg. 8-10.
 possible…” said a statement from Mayor’s spokesman Timothy
McNulty. 20
70. On December 14, 2017, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)
approved a $500,000 loan for the Bethesda Homewood Redevelop. 21
At this board meeting, URA member Jim Ferlo partially blamed HUD for
making deals with property owners without any input from the city. 22
71. On December 21, 2017, the URA issued a Request for Proposal to
transfer the subsidy to other rental properties so that the affordable
resource can be preserved in the City of Pittsburgh. 23

The BHP under New Owner and Property Management

72. On February 22, 2018, Aishel Real Estate mailed a New Management
Notice to the remaining BHP tenants. The BHP has been sold to
Esperanaza Homewood LLC. and the new property manager is Aegis
Realty Partners.

LEGAL CLAIMS

Count One:

Administrative Procedures Act and Section 223 (c) (2) and 223 (d) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017

73. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the preceding paragraphs;

74. Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, HUD “shall
take appropriate steps to ensure that project-based contracts remain in
effect”. HUD may determine that it is not feasible to continue the rental
20
Kate Giammarise, “Facing displacement, Homewood tenants seek Mayor’s help with feds”,
Pgh. Post Gazette, 11/21/17.
21
Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, Regular Board Meeting Minutes, Agenda:
Homewood (A.3), December 14, 2017.
22
Christian Morrow, “ELDI will purchase troubled East End properties”, Pittsburgh Courier,
December 22, 2017.
23
Urban Redevelopment Authority, Request for Proposal (RFP), “HUD Project Based Section 8
Rental Subsidy in the City of Pittsburgh: Reallocation of Budget Authority from the Bethesda
Homewood Properties” (Issued 12/21/2017).
 assistance but only “after written notice to the affected tenants.” If it is
determined that a contractual abatement remedy is needed because of
major threats to health and safety, the relocation can occur only after
written notice to the affected tenants and use of other available
remedies, such as partial abatement or receivership.”
75. HUD failed to follow any of the requirements set forth in Section 223
(d). It did not consult with the tenants and the local government before
determining unilaterally that it was not feasible to continue rental
assistance on a consideration of the rehabilitation of the BHP. Section
223(d), Consolidated Appropriations Act (2017).
76. HUD is required to take a variety of steps short of termination of the
project-based contract to obtain compliance with the contract
requirements. These steps include, but are not limited to, abating rental
assistance to individual units where deficiencies are present, requiring
the immediate replacement of the project management, imposing
monetary fines, or seeking a judicial order of specific performance.
HUD did not take any of these steps listed above to obtain compliance
the project-based contract but instead moved straight to the termination
of the contact. Sec. 223 (c) (2), Consolidated Appropriations Act (2017).

Count Two:

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution

77. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the preceding paragraphs;

78. Plaintiff has a property interest as tenancy of BHP and as a participant
in the Multifamily housing program;
79. Plaintiff’s lease will terminate automatically with the ending the Section
8 rental subsidy;
80. HUD failed to provide Plaintiff adequate notice and pre-deprivation
hearing on the termination of the project-based contract at the BHP;
81. HUD deprived Plaintiff of property interest without due process of law.
 Count Three:

Bivens Claim

82. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the preceding paragraphs;

83. Defendant Jane E Miller, HUD’s Field Office Director, is person acting
under the “color of federal law”;
84. Miller failed to response to complaints about health and security
concerns and the email of due process violations in the termination of
the HAP contract;
85. Miller disregarded the mandatory contract renewal provisions in ending
the HAP contract under Section 515 (c )(1) of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 by failing to consider the
17,000 housing shortage in the City of Pittsburgh;
86. Miller violated Plaintiff rights under Section 206(b) of the Uniform Act by
her failure to consider the availability of comparable replacement
housing.
87. Defendant Miller deprived Plaintiff of rights under the due process in the
decision to terminate the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment
contract, and then she ignored email about Plaintiffs claims.

Count Four:

42 U.S.C. 1983
88. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the preceding paragraphs;
89. Defendant Reggie Samuel, Managing Director of Leumas Residential,
as a private party, and Defendant Caster Binion, Executive Director of
the HACP, are persons acting under the “color of state law”.
90. Each defendant performed a public function of providing housing,
including relocation services.
91. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights under the Uniform Act by
withholding notices, referrals to comparable replacement housing, and
appeal procedures.
 92. Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of rights under the Uniform Act or
Fair Housing Act.

Count Five:

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968

93. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the preceding paragraphs;

94. Defendants denied Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in the planning
group as an integral part of the Section 8 housing program.
95. Defendants denied Plaintiff the opportunity to lease Section 8
subsidized housing.
96. Defendants restricted Plaintiff’s access to Section 8 HAP contract
enjoyed at other properties.
97. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by the unlawful
termination of Section 8 contract.
98. HUD chose not to pursue other alternatives available to it that would
have had less severe adverse fair housing effects, and has failed to
affirmatively further the fair housing rights of the Plaintiff.

Count Six:

Violation of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, 68 P.S. Section 250.502

99. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the preceding paragraphs;

100. Plaintiff has a valid lease with Homewood Residential LP
beginning on Sept 1, 2014 to Aug. 31, 2015, and continuing for
successive terms for one year each, which ends on the termination of
the Section 8 contract;
101. Defendant failed to perform the duty to maintain the property in
“decent, safe, and sanitary” conditions. HUD writes, “Residents of
 properties (scoring below 31) are not receiving the quality of housing to
which they are entitled”. 24
102. The landlord has violated the PA Landlord and Tenant Act of
1951 by its failure to maintain the hallways at Plaintiff’s residences.
103. Plaintiff has suffered emotionally from the unlawful termination of
the rental subsidy and prospect of homelessness, damages to personal
property, and landlord’s disregard of complaints from the Plaintiff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court to:

a) Declare that Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures

Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and Sections 223 (d) and 223 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act by acting in an arbitrary and capricious
manner and contrary to law in abating the project-based contract at the
BHP;
b) Declare that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to
procedural due process by failing to provide notice and pre-deprivation
opportunity to be heard prior to the decision to abate and terminate the
project-based contract;
c) Declare that Defendants have violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
3601 et seq. ;
d) Issue a preliminary injunction setting aside HUD’s decision, suspending
HUD’s abatement of the rental subsidies for the BHP, and preserving its
project-based section 8 housing assistance payment contract pending a
decision on the merits;
e) Issue a permanent injunction directing the Defendants to maintain the
project-based contract at the BHP;
24
Samuel Tuffour, Program Manager, Real Estate Assessment Center, letter, July 13, 2017.
f) Issue a permanent injunction directing the Defendants to take
alternative steps to bring the BHP into full compliance with the project-
based contract;
g) Issue a permanent injunction directing the Defendants to carry out their
obligation to comply with the Fair Housing Act in regard to their
decisions regarding the BHP;
h) Award Plaintiff costs, expenses, compensatory and punitive damages in
amounts to be determined by the Court and/or jury.
i) Grant any other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Tyrone Goodwin

Tyrone Goodwin DN: cn=Tyrone Goodwin, o, ou,

email=tgoodwin7704@live.com, c=US
Date: 2018.03.01 22:32:47 -05'00'
BY: Tyrone Goodwin, Pro Se _________________________
7704 Tioga Street, Apartment 6
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
412-871-8869
Tgoodwin7704@live.com