Joint Appendix — Oakland Housing Authority v. Rucker
Supreme Court brief2001
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Nos. 00-1770 & 00-1781
Jn the Supreme Court of the United States:
AT Ae
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONER
v.
PEARLIE RUCKER, ET AL.
OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. :
PEARLIE RUCKER, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOINT APPENDIX
THEODORE B. OLSON PAUL RENNE
Solicitor General JAMES DONATO
Department of Justice WHITTY SOMVICHIAN
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Cooley Godward LLP
(202) 514-2217 One Maritime Plaza,
semeel of Record 20th Floor
gy ns > Aen San Francisco, CA 94111
15) 693-2000
United States Department of = SS Record
Housing and Urban ounsel of
Development for Respondents
GARY T. LAFAYETTE
SUSAN T. KUMAGAI
LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
100 Spear Street
Suite #400
San Francisco CA 94105
(415) 357-4600
Counsel of Record
for Petitioners
Oakland Housing Authority
Harold Davis
staat aeeeeeeeeieeeeneneemeiemmentionemeaneeeee eee
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: MAY 24, 2001
CERTIORARI GRANTED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (S.F.) dockets entries
United States Court of Appeals docket entries,
Nos. 98-16322 & 98-16542
First amended complaint for injunctive relief and
declaratory relief
Defendants Harold Davis and Oakland Housing
Authority’s request for judicial notice (dated
Apr. 17, 1998)
Declaration of Barbara Hill (dated May 8, 1998)
Deciaration of Willie Lee (dated May 8, 1998)
Declaration of Herman Walker (dated May 8, 1998) ....
Declaration of Pearlie Rucker (dated May 8, 1998)
Declaration of Ron Smith in opposition to plaintiffs’
motion for preliminary injunction
OHA Tenant Lease
OHA Occupants responsibility
OHA tenant agreement to maintain a drug-free
environment
NOTICE
The following items appear on the following
pages in the printed appendix to the petition for a
writ of certiorari in No. 00-1770:
Court of appeals’ opinion (Jan. 24, 2001)
Court of appeals’ order (Aug. 18, 2000)
Court of appeals’ opinion (Feb. 14, 2000)
District court memorandum, order and preliminary
injunction (June 19, 1998)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 98-CV-781
PEARLIE RUCKER; HERMAN WALKER; WILLIE LEE;
AND BARBARA HILL, PLAINTIFFS
v.
HAROLD DAVIS; OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANTS
Filed: Feb. 27, 1998
DOCKET ENTRIES
DOCKET
DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS
2/27/98 1 COMPLAINT: No Sum-
mons(es) issued; Fee status
ifpp entered on 2/27/98 [3:98-
ev-00781] (mh)
* ¢+ &£© & &
(1)
DATE
PROCEEDINGS
3/4/98
15
16
17
FIRST AMENDED COM-
PLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiff;
adding plaintiffs Herman
Walker, Willie Lee, Barbara
Hill, and defendants Oakland
Housing Auth, HUD [3:98-cv-
00871] (mel) [Entry date
03/05/98}
DECLARATION by Willie Lee
on behalf of Plaintiffs re
motion for preliminary injunc-
tion [14-1] [3:98-cv-00781)]
(mel) [Entry date 04/06/98)
DECLARATION by Barbara
Hill on behalf of Plaintiffs re
motion for preliminary
injunction [14-1] [3:98-cv-
00781)
DECLARATION by Pearlie
Rucker on behalf of Plaintiffs
re motion for preliminary
injunction [14-1] [3:98-cev-
00781)
PROCEEDINGS
4/17/98
6/19/98
DECLARATION by Herman
Walker on behalf of Plaintiffs
re motion for preliminary
injunction [14-1] [3:98-ev-
00781] (mel) [Entry date
04/06/98)
*_ es *£ *& &
29
DECLARATION by Ron
Smith on behalf of defendant
Harold Davis, defendant Oak-
land Housing Auth in OPPO-
SITION to plaintiffs’ motion
for preliminary injunction [14-
1} [3:98-ev-00781] (mel) [Entry
date 04/02/98}
*_ * ¢+ * &
53
MEMORANDUM, ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY IN-
JUNCTION: by Judge Charles
R. Breyer granting in part
and denying in part defendant
Oakland Housing Authority’s
motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim [31-1] WITH
30 DAYS’ LEAVE TO
AMEND, granting in part and
denying in part defendant
DOCKET
DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS
Housing and Urban Develop-
ment’s motion to dismiss case
* *+ *¢ *& &
[22-1] that defendant Oakland
Housing Authority, its of-
ficers, agents, aeons —
are preliminarily enjoined, un-
til sexthor order of this Court,
from terminating the leases of
tenants for drug-related
criminal activity that does not
occur within the tenant’s
apartment until . . . that
defendant OHA, its officers,
agents, servants .. . are
preliminarily enjoined, until
further order of this Court,
from prosecuting the Oakland
-Piedmont-Emeryville Judi-
cial District, Alameda County
eviction proceedings .. .
(see document) (Date En-
tered: 6/24/98) (cc: all counsel
[3:98-cv-00781] (mel) [Entry
date 06/24/98]
5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 98-16322 AND 98-16542
PEARLIE RUCKER; HERMAN WALKER; WILLIE LEE;
AND BARBARA HILL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
v.
HAROLD DAVIS; OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Filed: July 20, 1998
DOCKET ENTRIES
DATE
PROCEEDINGS
7/20/98
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL [98-16322].
Filed original and 15 copies Appellant U.S.
Dept. of HUD opening brief * * *.
DOCKETED CASE AND ENTERED
APPEARANCE of counsel [98-16542].
DATE PROCEEDINGS
8/27/98
9/15/98
10/6/98
10/28/98
12/10/98
12/15/98
2/17/99
Filed order * * * These two appeals are
related appeals from the DC’s preliminary
inj order. Ninth Cir R 3-3 applies to these
appeals. The court sua sponte consolidates
these appeals. * * *.
Filed original and 15 copies Appellant
Harold Davis & Oakland Housing * ;
* * * *& *
Received Amicus Center for The Com-
munity Interest brief * * *
* *+ * * *
Filed original and 15 copies appellees’ 43
pages brief * * *
P * * * * *
Filed original and 15 copies Harold Davis’ &
Oakland Housing reply brief * * *
Filed original and 15 copies U.S. Dept. of
HUD reply brief, * * *
Filed original and 15 copies Appellees’
supplemental brief in response to amicus
brief * * *
DATE
PROCEEDINGS
3/12/99
4/16/99
4/16/99
4/16/99
2/14/00
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED * * *
Filed order (Joseph T. Sneed, Diarmuid F.
O’Scannlain, William A. FLETCHER): The
parties are requested to file within 14 days
of this order briefs of not more than 3,500
words each discussing their respective
positions on the relevance of 21 USC
881(a)(7), as well as the amendments made
thereto by the Anti-Drug Act of 1988, to the
interpretation of 45 USC 14387d(1)(5).
Specifically, is the “knowledge or consent of
that owner” provision in section 881(a)(7),
relating to forfeitures, incorporated into
section 1437d(1)(d), relating to leaseholds?
** *
Filed original and 15 copies Appellant U.S.
Dept. of HUD’s supplemental brief of 7
pages *_* *
Filed original and 15 copies Appellants
Harold Davis & Oakland Housing in 98-
16542 supplemental brief of 7 pages * * *
Filed original and 15 copies Appellees’ in
98-16322 supplemental brief of 17 pages
FILED OPINION: The order granting the
preliminary injunction is REVERSED, and
the preliminary injunction is VACATED.
DATE
PROCEEDINGS
8/18/00
9/19/00
** * * *
Filed order FOR PUBLICATION (Procter
R. HUG): Upon the vote of a majority of
nonrecused regular active judges of this
court, it is ordered that this case be reheard
by the en banc court pursuant to Cir.R. 35-
3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not
be cited as precedent by or to this court or
any district court of the 9th Cir., except to
the extent adopted by the en banc court.
* * *
>. &@ & &
Filed original and 20 copies Oakland
Housing supplemental brief * * *
Filed original and 15 copies Appellees
Pearlie Rucker Herman Walker Willie Lee,
Barbara Hill supplemental brief * * *
* * *&* & *
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Joseph T.
SNEED, Mary M. SCHROEDER, Harry
PREGERSON, Stephen R. REINHARDT,
Ferdinand F. FERNANDEZ, Thomas G.
NELSON, Michael D. HAWKINS, Barry G.
SILVERMAN, M. M. McKEOWN, Ronald M.
GOULD, Richard A. PAEZ * * * |
DATE
PROCEEDINGS
1/24/01
FILED OPINION: AFFIRMED * * *
** *& &k *
10
ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C-98-00781 CRB
PEARLIE RUCKER, HERMAN WALKER, WILLIE LEE,
AND BARBARA HILL, PLAINTIFFS
Vv.
HAROLD DAVIS, OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DOES I-XXX, DEFENDANTS
[Filed: Mar. 4, 1998]
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
JURISDICTION
MAN
PLAINTIFFS PEARLIE RUCKER, HER
WALKER, WILLIE LEE and BARBARA HILL complain
against HAROLD DAVIS, OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHOR-
ITY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP-
MENT, AND DoEs I-XXX, and allege:
JURISDICTION .
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 (federal question involving interpretation of fed-
eral statute) and 28 U.S.C. 1343 (deprivation of civil
rights)
11
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
This matter is properly assigned to the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, because the
events took place in Oakland, Alameda County, Califor-
nia, within the Oakland Division of the Northern
District. (L-R 3-2 (d).)
PARTIES
1. PLAINTIFF PEARLIE RUCKER, HERMAN
WALKER, WILLIE LEE AND BARBARA HILL are citizens
of the United States and reside in the State of Califor-
nia, City of Oakland, Alameda County.
2. DEFENDANT HAROLD Davis is, and at all per-
tinent times was, the chief of the Oakland Housing
Authority. He is sued in his official capacity. DEFEN-
DANT OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY is the lessor of
the homes in which the plaintiffs reside in the City of
Oakland. They administer these homes through a con-
tract with the DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
3. The identities of DEFENDANTS Dogs 1-50 are
unknown to PLAINTIFFS, who request leave to amend
this complaint when that information is obtained.
4. PLAINTIFFS are unaware of the identities and
capacities of DOES 1-50 at this time, and request leave
to amend this complaint when this information is
ascertained.
12
SUMMARY OF FACTS
PLAINTIFF PEARLIE RUCKER
5. PLAINTIFF PEARLIE RUCKER resides at 2005
E. 21st Street, Apt. 102, Oakland, California (here-
inafter, the Rucker Premises) under a written lease
with the lessor DEFENDANT OAKLAND HOUSING
AUTHORITY, headed by DEFENDANT HAROLD DAVIS.
PLAINTIFF RUCKER is 63 years old, with no history of
criminal violations or drug use, and has resided in the
premises since 1985. Residing at the Rucker Premises
is her daughter Gelinda Rucker and Gelinda’s two
daughters and one granddaughter. Gelinda receives
Supplemental Security Income benefits for a mental
disability she has had since birth. She is incapable of
adequately caring for herself or for her children.
PLAINTIFF RUCKER is the primary care giver for the
entire family.
6. PLAINTIFF RUCKER’s adult son, Michael
Rucker, does not reside at the Rucker Premises, and
has not resided there since the early 1980s.
7. On December 31, 1997, DEFENDANT OAKLAND
HOUSING AUTHORITY filed a complaint alleging unlaw-
ful detainer of the Rucker Premises by PLAINTIFF
RUCKER, in the Municipal Court for the State of Cali-
fornia, Alameda County, Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville
Judicial District, Oakland Housing Authority v. Ruc-
ker, Case #012528 (hereafter, the Rucker complaint).
The Rucker complaint sought, with other relief, ter-
mination and forfeiture of PLAINTIFF RUCKER’s lease,
and her eviction. The primary basis of this suit is that
the PLAINTIFF violated the assurance that no family
members, guests, or other persons under her control
13
would engage in drug-related criminal activity on or
near the premises.
8. Along with other allegations, the complaint
alleges in substance:
On March 9, 1997, a Housing Authority officer on
patrol in the 2200 block of E. 19th Street (note:
approximately three blocks from the Rucker Pre-
mises) observed Gelinda drinking an alcoholic bever-
age in public. When the officer contacted Gelinda,
she attempted to conceal the alcohol. Gelinda ap-
peared to be under the influence and was arrested
for being drunk in public. A search of Gelinda re-
vealed one rock of suspected cocaine and a crack
cocaine pipe. Gelinda gave Rucker’s address as her
residence.
On September 19, 1997, Oakland police officers
on patrol in the 1400 block of 23rd Avenue, Oakland
(note: approximately eight blocks from the Rucker
premises) saw Michael loitering at a bus stop with
a second man. Michael was contacted and sub-
sequently arrested for a warrant. When they
searched Michael, the officers found a piece of rock
cocaine. Michael gave the Premises as his residence.
9. This DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT Davis
dismissed the complaint on February 17, 1998. How-
ever, these DEFENDANTS have indicated that they
construe the quoted lease provision to permit eviction
of PLAINTIFF RUCKER irrespective of Mrs. Rucker’s
personal involvement in, knowledge of, or actual ability
to prevent drug-related criminal activity. PLAINTIFF
RUCKER has no control over the acts of Michael
14
is limited i ili trol the acts
Rucker, and is limited in her ability to control th:
of Gelinda Rucker, due to Gelinda’s mental disability.
. For the past seven years, Pearlie Rucker has
inne the oan of Gelinda Rucker — -!
evidence of alcohol and drug use. She has er =
any drugs or drug paraphernalia. Pearlie Ru So
never seen Gelinda physically manifest any sign 0 _
use. She has warned Gelinda and others that any “ 1g
use or criminal activity on the premises can result in
eviction. See the Declaration of Pearlie Rucker.
PLAINTIFF HERMAN WALKER
ld
11. PLAINTIFF HERMAN WALKER is 7 years ol
and disabled. The left side of his body, ——— a
left hand, is stiff and semi-paralyzed. He is :
hearing, has problems walking, usually needs a —_,
and is periodically put on oxygen due to ee
breath. He is no longer capable of living independently
and requires an in-home health care taker.
; NTIFF WALKER resides at 1621 Harrison
Pie nse, Oakland, California, and has lived at his
premises for 8 years. He lives in the “Senior ——,
units of the Oakland Housing Authority. The _—
detainer action filed against him by the rege
Housing Authority contains no allegations t + de
personally engaged in drug-related criminal activity
that he knew of such activity. :
_ In later 1977, the DEFENDANT AKLAND
avenue AUTHORITY filed a complaint alleging unlaw-
ful detainer of the Walker Premises by ampry wd
WALKER, in the Municipal Court for the State -
fornia, Alameda County, Onkiand-Plodmont-Emeryvite
Judicial District, Oakland Housing Authority v.
a
15
[Walker], Case #011040 (hereafter, the Walker
complaint). The Walker complaint sought, with other
relief, termination and forfeiture of PLAINTIFF
RUCKER’s lease, and his eviction. The primary basis of
this suit is that the PLAINTIFF violated the assurance
that no family members, guests, or other persons under
his control would engage in drug-related criminal
activity on or near the premises.
14. Along with other allegations, the unlawful
detainer complaint alleges:
On August 7, 1997, Oakland Housing Authority
officers conducting a security check at your com-
plex, which is a senior citizen building, contacted
Kelly Shine. Shine, who was not a senior citizen and
very fidgety showed signs of being a narcotics user.
Officers conducted [sic] Shine and a check was con-
ducted. Officers discovered that Shine is on proba-
tion with a search clause for narcotics. Officers
invoked the search privilege recovering one rock of
cocaine and a cocaine pipe. Shine was arrested for
possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. Shine
told officers she was at your unit with a friend who
lived with you. You are the only resident listed on
the lease. Officers went to your unit and contacted
you. You gave officers permission to search your
unit, and once inside they contacted Shine’s minor
child, Shirley Hardaway, who was wearing a thin
nightgown and appeared to be residing in your unit,
Marguerite Wise and Eleanor Randle, who has had
several narcotics arrests at your complex.
As officers searched your unit, they recovered a
cardboard box inside your bedroom containing a
16
metal-crack cocaine pipes. Randle, who had a
cocaine pipe pinned inside her jacket, was —_— 7
for possession of narcotics paraphernalia. In ft
tion, officers observed a large amount of wome 7
clothing and personal items throughout your ert
You denied that anyone was residing with you.
lease violation was drafted.
k later, A t 12, 1997, OHA officers and
snl vesesrte aaaaee returned to your unit to
conduct a follow-up check. During the August 7 con-
5 tact with you, officers had observed a sign posted on
your front door stating “oxygen no smoking”. —
ever, your guests were smoking inside pad
Durin ¢ that contact officers also observ —
gen machine and several oxygen bottles. — 7
and your manager entered your unit with yo
permission, they again contacted Hardaway in your
bedroom wearing a night gown and robe. You again
denied that Hardaway resided in your unit. =—
found a rock cocaine pipe inside a bag of hair rollers.
As officers informed you of the paraphernalia =
stated, you could not control what people brough
into your unit. A lease violation was drafted.
in your unit and you consented to a
ee a oo “inside, officers contacted Shirley
Hardaway sitting on a sofa in your living room.
17
Hardaway was asked to sit in another area as offi-
cers conducted their search. In the creases of your
sofa where Hardaway had been sitting officers re-
covered a glass concaine pipe. Hardaway admitted
to using rock cocaine, but denied that the pipe
belonged to her. Hardaway was cited for possession
of narcotics paraphernalia.
15. PLAINTIFF WALKER fired his in-home care-
taker Eleanor Randle shortly after he learned that she
had been accused of drug activity in his apartment. See
the Declaration of Herman Walker. DEFENDANT
OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY’s eviction suit against
PLAINTIFF WALKER is awaiting trial.
PLAINTIFF WILLIE LEE
16. Willie Lee is 71 years old and has been an
Oakland Housing Authority resident for 25 years.
There is no allegation by Oakland Housing Authority
that she participated in any illegal drug activity or
knew of any illegal drug activity.
17. In early 1998, the DEFENDANT OAKLAND
HOUSING AUTHORITY filed a complaint alleging unlaw-
ful detainer of the Lee Premises by PLAINTIFF LEE,
in the Municipal Court for the State of California,
Alameda County, Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Judi-
cial District, Oakland Housing Authority v. Lee, Case
#013197 (hereafter, the Lee complaint). The Lee com-
plaint sought, with other relief, termination and forfei-
ture of PLAINTIFF LEE’s lease, and her eviction. The
primary basis of this suit is that the PLAINTIFF
violated the assurance that no family members, guests,
or other persons under her control would engage in
drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises.
18
18. Along with other allegations, the complaint
alleges:
On November 6, 1997, Oakland Housing Author-
ity officers responding to complaints of individuals
using narcotics and loitering in the parking lot area
of the complex, contacted your grandson Robert
Lee, who is listed on your lease as a resident. As
officers approached, Lee discarded a marijuana ciga-
rette. He was informed of the complaint and ad-
mitted to smoking marijuana. A search of Lee’s left
front jacket revealed a ziplock baggie containing
marijuana. Lee was cited for possession of mari-
juana. -
19. The complaint did not allege that PLAINTIFF
WILLIE LEE was personally guilty of, or had any prior
knowledge of the illegal drug activity alleged in the
complaint as the basis for the eviction.
20. PLAINTIFF LEE has warned A household
use or criminal activity on the premises
aan ee on See the Declaration of Willie
Lee. DEFENDANT OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY’s
eviction suit against PLAINTIFF LEE is awaiting trial.
PLAINTIFF BARBARA HILL
21. PLAINTIFF BARBARA HILL is 63 years old and
has lived at her premises for approximately 30 years.
There is no allegation by Oakland Housing Authority
that she participated in any illegal drug activity or
knew of any illegal drug activity.
22. In early 1998, the DEFENDANT OAKLAND
HOUSING AUTHORITY filed a complaint alleging unlaw-
ful detainer of the Hill Premises by PLAINTIFF HILL,
19
in the Municipal Court for the State of California,
Alameda County, Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Judi-
cial District, Oakland Housing Authority v. Hill, Case
#013198 (hereafter, the Hill complaint). The Hill
complaint sought, with other relief, termination and
forfeiture of PLAINTIFF HILL’s lease, and her eviction.
The primary basis of this suit is that the PLAINTIFF
violated the assurance that no family members, guests,
or other persons under her control would engage in
drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises.
23. Along with other allegations, the complaint
alleges:
On November 6, 1997, Oakland Housing Authority
officers responding to complaints of individuals using
narcotics and loitering in the parking lot area of the
complex, contacted your grandson Donte McPherson,
who is listed on your lease as a resident. As officers
approached, one of the individuals with your grandson
discarded a suspected marijuana cigarette. McPherson
was informed of the complaint and admitted to smoking
marijuana. A lease violation was submitted.
24. PLAINTIFF HILL has warned her household
that any drug use or criminal activity on the premises
can result in eviction. See the Declaration of Barbara
Hill. DEFENDANT OAKLAND HousING AUTHORITY’s
eviction suit against PLAINTIFF HILL is awaiting trial.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
25. All of the PLAINTIFFS have written leases
with the DEFENDANT OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHOR-
ITY. Each of the PLAINTIFFS has been sued by this
DEFENDANT based on the allegation that drug-related
20
ivi f their
criminal activity has been committed by one of
family or household members on or near the premises.
_ None of these unlawful detainer actions allege
nus tha PLAINTIFFS had any prior knowledge of the
alleged drug-related criminal activity or that the
PLAINTIFFS personally engaged in drug-related crimi-
nal activity. |
27. The PLAINTIFFS did not engage in such
activity, nor did they have any knowledge of it oceur-
ring in the home or on the premises, nor did they
permit its occurrence. Each of them denied participa-
tion or knowledge of such activity in their answers to
the unlawful detainer complaints and in the Declara-
tions submitted in this action. sh
28. Each of the plaintiffs also informed of their
household members that drug-related criminal activity
is not permitted in their home or on the premises.
Herman Walker, who lives alone, informed his family
members, his caretakers, and his guests. a
. Each of the unlawful detainer complaints
oun en one of the Plaintiffs violated the following
portions of the lease agreement:
Paragraph 9: m. To assure that tenant, any
member of the household, a guest, or another person
under the tenant’s control, shall not engage in:
(i) Any criminal activity that threatens the
health. saf t to peaceful enjoyment of
the nn foe ov public housing residents,
21
(ii) Any drug-related criminal activity on or
near the premises .. .
30. These lease terms were mandated by the
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Hous-
ING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, which issued 24 C.F.R.
966.4(f)(12), which mandates that all public housing
authority leases contain a clause stating that the
leaseholders “assure” that the “tenant, members of the
tenant’s household, guests, or other persons under the
tenant’s control” will not engage in “drug-related
criminal activity on or near the premises,” and that any
violation of this assurance will be the basis for violation.
(42 U.S.C. 1983)
31. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference the
allegations in Paragraphs 1-30, above.
82. By their acts and omissions, working in concert,
DEFENDANTS have acted under color of state law in
violating and threatening to further violate PLAIN-
TIFFS’ rights under the United States Constitution, as
well as the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1437, et seq. Accord-
ingly, PLAINTIFF RUCKER seeks declaratory relief as
prayed for below, and PLAINTIFFS W ALKER, HILL
and LEE seek injunctive relief and declaratory relief as
prayed for below.
(5 U.S.C. 701, et seq.)
33. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference the alle-
gations in Paragraphs 1-32, above.
34. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, has violated
22
the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 701-706) by
acts or omissions that are inconsistent with the applica-
isi Such acts
tatutory and regulatory provisions. 1
paren the Tonane of 24 C.F.R. 966.4(f)(12). Accord
laratory relief as
i LAINTIFF RUCKER seeks declara
on for below, and PLAINTIFFS W ee
onl LEE injunctive relief and declaratory rele
prayed for below.
(42 U.S.C. 2101, et seq.)
95. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference the
allegations in Paragraphs 1-34, above.
36. The Americans With Disabilities Act (42 USC.
Chapter 126) protects disabled persons from —
nation in public accommodations. ahermeprng tole
MAN WALKER and PLAINTIFF PEARLIE po
daughter Gelinda are both “disabled” as detin
42 U.S.C. 12102(2). cies
97. 42 U.S.C. 12312 provides that “no orp =
vidual with a disability shall ee . — dee
ility, be excluded from cipation be |
= benefits of the services, programs, or creme = ;
public entity, or be subjected to discrimina
such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
seed at _ te make vee
_ Discrimination ineludes: “Failure |
a le accommodations in policies, atte rs _—.
such modifications are n
—— services, facilities, ————_ ae:
ommodations to individu with disab :
12 USC. § 12182(b)(2)(A)GiD. These —_ .
specifically applied by regulation to public housing
23
agencies such as the Oakland Housing Authority. See,
24 C.F.R. Subtitle A Part 9.
39. Discrimination also includes: “. . . to deny
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, ac-
commodations, or other opportunities to an individual
because of the known disability of an individual with
whom the individual is known to have a relationship or
association.” 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(1)(E).
40. This statutory scheme requires DEFENDANTS
DAVIS and OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY to make the
reasonable accommodation of exempting PLAINTIFF
WALKER and PLAINTIFF RUCKER from Lease Para-
graph 9. Evicting PLAINTIFF WALKER and PLAIN-
TIFF RUCKER for failure to comply with the Lease
Paragraph 9—where the physically cannot comply due
to his physical disabilities, and she is a homemaker
raising her mentally disabled daughter’s children but
unable to control the daughter’s actions when outside
the premises—constitutes deprivation of housing based
on disability and discrimination in violation of the ADA.
41. This statutory scheme also requires that DE-
FENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT make reasonable accom-
modations in the regulatory scheme to accommodate
these PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFF RUCKER seeks de-
claratory relief and PLAINTIFF WALKER seeks injunc-
tive and declaratory relief as set forth below.
24 a,
(Illegal contract)
42. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference the alle-
gations in Paragraph 1-41, above.
_ The leases provided to PLAINTIFFS by the
savesinaiet awe and OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHOR-
ITY constitute a contract of adhesion, and contains
unconscionable contractual terms. Hence, these leases
are illegal and unenforceable.
PRAYER
PLAINTIFFS seek the following injunctive relief
from the court:
1. Preliminary injunctive relief ordering the
Defendant Davis and Oakland Housing Authority to
cease and desist, now and in the future, from all
attempts to conduct evictions without good cause,
founded on allegations and proof of such good cause,
and of the tenant’s personal participation in, prior
knowledge of, and actual ability to prevent drug-related
or other criminal activity;
2. Preliminary injunctive relief requiring the
Oakland Housing Authority to exempt Herman Walker
and Pearlie Rucker from Lease Paragraph 9, pursuant
to the mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act
(42 U.S.C. Section 12312, et seq.) to make “reasonable
accommodations” to people with disabilities.
3. Preliminary injunctive relief halting the state
court eviction cases in Oakland Housing Authority v.
Walker, action 011040, Oakland Housing Authority v.
Hill, action 013198; and Oakland Housing Authority v.
Lee, action 013197; all in the Oakland-Piedmont-Emery-
25
ville Judicial District, Alameda County, State Califor-
nia; until the issues in this suit are resolved.
4. Preliminary injunctive relief staying the
enforcement of 24 C.F.R. 966.4(f)(12) on statutory and
constitutional grounds; this regulation mandates that
all OHA leases contain a clause stating that the lease-
holders “assure” that the “tenant, member of the
tenant’s household, guests, or other persons under the
tenant’s control” will not engage in “drug-related
criminal activity on or near the premises”, and that any
violation of this assurance will be the basis for eviction.
5. Preliminary injunctive relief staying enforce-
ment of any provision in HUD and OHA leases and
contracts that permits evictions based on drug-related
or other criminal activity to be conducted without good
cause, that is founded on allegations and proof of such
good cause, and on the tenant’s personal participation
in, prior knowledge of, and actual ability to prevent
drug-related or other criminal activity;
6. A declaration that 24 C.F.R. 966.4(f)(12) is both
illegal and unconstitutional;
7. A declaration that DEFENDANTS Davis and
the OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY must cease and
desist, now and in the future, from all attempts to con-
duct evictions based on drug-related or other criminal
activity without good cause, founded on allegations and
proof of such good cause, that a tenant personally
participated in, had prior knowledge of, and the actual
ability to prevent criminal activity on the premises.
8. A declaration that the acts and omissions of
DEFENDANTS constitutes violations of the United
States Constitution and the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
1437, et seq.
26
; 42
9. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988,
U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and California Civil Code 1717, and
10. Costs of this action;
11. Such other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
Dated: March 3, 1998
/s/ WILLLAM M. SIMPICH
WILLIAM M. SIMPICH
Attorney for PLAINTIFF
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C-98-00781
PEARLIE RUCKER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
Vv.
HAROLD DAVIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
[Filed Apr. 17, 1998]
Date: May 8, 1998
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Ctrm: 8
DEFENDANTS HAROLD DAVIS AND OAKLAND
HOUSING AUTHORITY'S REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendants HAROLD Davis and Oakland Housing
Authority (“OHA”), by and through their attorneys,
hereby request the Court to take judicial notice pur-
suant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of the following
facts:
1. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the instant case, Mr. John
Murcko, also represented the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
against the OHA entitled Alice Oliver et al. v. Oakland
Housing Authority et al., Alameda County Municipal
Court No. 574817, (“Oliver v. OHA”) wherein Mr.
Murcko alleged that OHA’s public housing constituted a
nuisance as a result of “lack of security for tenants by
28
the allowance of drug dealers.” (A true and correct
copy of the First Supplemental Complaint for Damages
dated January 27, 1997 in that matter is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A”. See Paragraph 32, subparagraph g,
page 15 therein for the reference to drug dealers.)
2. During the deposition of Patricia Blackwell, one
of the public housing tenant-plaintiffs in the Oliver v.
OHA matter, on January 3, 1997, Mr. Murcko stated,
The law is that a landlord has to provide security. If
there’s drug problems, the law says the landlord has
to eliminate that problem. That’s the law ma’am.
That is the law. [Blackwell Depo. 45:11-14]
3. The deponent, Ms. Blackwell, indicated that as a
tenant of public housing, she would like to see OHA
take action to rid public housing of tenants who are
dealing drugs, as follows,
Q: What do you expect OHA, your landlord, to
do about drug dealers?
A: I expect them to have them removed.
[Blackwell Depo. 47:14-18]
4. True and correct copies of relevant pages of the
deposition transcript of Patricia Blackwell are attached
hereto as Exhibit “B”. The original of this deposition
29
transcript has been lod ith
the file Oliver v. OHA. ged with the Court and is part of
Dated: April 16, 1998 Respectfully sumbitted
LAFAYETTE, KUMAGAI &
CLARKE
/s/
SUSAN T. KUMAGAI
Attorneys for Defendants
HAROLD DAVIS and OAKLAND
HOUSING AUTHORITY
TED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
v NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C-98-00781 CRB
PEARLIE RUCKER; HERMAN WALKER; WILLIE LEE
AND BARBARA HILL, PLAINTIFFS
v.
. ITY:
HAROLD DAVIS; OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Dogs I-XXX, DEFENDANTS
[DATE: May 8, 1998
TIME: 10 a.m.
DEPT.: 8 [illegible] F'1.)
ATION OF BARBARA HILL IN SUPPORT OF
CECA NOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DECLARATION OF BARBARA HILL
I, Barbara Hill, depose and say;
1. I am a tenant at 5120 Shafter Ave. #1, in
Oakland, CA 94618. I am 68 years old. I have been a
tenant there for about 30 years.
2. My landlord is the Oakland Housing Authority.
3. I have been served a summons and complaint in
an unlawful detainer action, Oakland Housing
Authority v. [Hill], case #013198, Oakland-Piedmont-
Emeryville Judicial District, seeking my eviction.
31
4. The unlawful detainer complaint alleges that:
On November 6, 1997, Oakland Housing Author-
ity officers responding to complaints of individuals
using narcotics and loitering in the parking lot area
of the complex, contacted your grandson Donte
McPherson, who is listed on your lease as a resident.
As officers approached, one of the individuals with
your grandson discarded a suspected marijuana
cigarette. McPherson was informed of the com-
plaint and admitted to smoking marijuana. A lease
violation was submitted.
5. I have answered the unlawful detainer complaint
denying the allegations.
6. The complaint does not allege that I had any
prior knowledge of the alleged criminal activity or that
I personally engaged in criminal activity, which is the
basis of the eviction action.
7. I did not engage in any criminal drug activity. I
had no knowledge of any criminal drug activity
occuring on the premises. I did not permit activity or
cause other others to engage in activity, because I had
no knowledge of any activity.
8. I have informed the members of my household
numerous times that no drug related or criminal
activity is permitted in my home or on the premises.
32
es to
I declare that the preceding is true and correct
the best of my knowledge and recollection under the
penalty of perjury. Executed in Oakland on February
26, 1998.
/s) BARBARA HILL
BARBARA HILL
33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C-98-00781 CRB
PEARLIE RUCKER; HERMAN WALKER; WILLIE LEE
AND BARBARA HILL, PLAINTIFFS
Vv.
HAROLD DAVIS; OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DOEs I-X XX, DEFENDANTS
[DATE: May 8, 1998
TIME: 10 a.m.
DEPT.: 8 [illegible] F'l.]
DECLARATION OF WILLIE LEE IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DECLARATION OF WILLIE LEE
I, Willie Lee, depose and say;
1. I ama tenant at 5120 Shafter Ave. #4, in Oakland,
CA 94618. I am 71 years old. I have been a tenant
there for about 25 years.
2. My landlord is the Oakland Housing Authority.
3. I have been served a summons and complaint in
an unlawful detainer action, Oakland Housing
Authority v. Lee, case #013197, Oakland-Piedmont-
Emeryville Judicial District, seeking my eviction.
34
4. The unlawful detainer complaint alleges that:
On November 6, 1997, Oakland Housing Author-
ity officers responding to complaints of individuals
using narcotics and loitering in the parking lot area
of the complex, contacted defendant’s grandson
Robert Lee, who is listed on defendant’s lease as a
resident. As officers approached, Lee discarded a
suspected marijuana cigarette. He was informed of
the complaint and admitted to smoking marijuana.
A search of Lee’s left front jacked [sic] revealed a
ziplock baggie containing marijuana. Lee was cited
for possession of marijuana.
5. Ihave answered the unlawful detainer complaint
denying the allegations.
6. The complaint does not allege that I had any prior
knowledge of the alleged criminal activity or that I
personally engaged in criminal activity, which is the
basis of the eviction action.
7. I did not engage in any criminal drug activity. I
had no knowledge of any criminal drug activity
occuring on the premises. I did not permit activity or
cause other others to engage in activity, because I had
no knowledge of any activity.
8. I have informed all of the members of my
household that drug related activity and criminal
activity is not permitted in my home or on the
premises.
35
I declare that the preceding is true and co
rrect to th
best of my knowledge and recollection under the
ae gg perjury. Executed in Oakland on February
/s/
WILLIE LEE
36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C-98-00781 CRB
PEARLIE RUCKER; HERMAN WALKER; WILLIE LEE
AND BARBARA HILL, PLAINTIFFS
v.
HAROLD DAVIS, OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DOoEs I-XXX, DEFENDANTS
[DATE: May 8, 1998
TIME: 10 a.m.
DEPT.: 8 [illegible] F').]
DECLARATION OF HERMAN WALKER IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DECLARATION OF HERMAN WALKER
I, Herman Walker, depose and say;
1. I ama tenant at 1621 Harrison Street #1309, in
Oakland, CA 94612. I am 75 years old. I am disabled.
My feet swell, my legs, my back, and my neck are in
poor condition. I have arthritis. I have problems with
my stomach. I have problems walking and usually need
a cane. I have been periodically put on oxygen due to
shortness of breath. The left side of my body,
particularly my left hand, is stiff and semi-paralyzed.
When I get upset or when I am under stress, I
37
sometimes cannot remember what I am saying, and I
suffer from disorientation, and confusion. I am hard of
hearing. I am no longer capable of living independently
and I require an in-home health care taker.
2. My landlord is the Oakland Housing Authority.
3. I have been served a summons and complaint in
an unlawful detainer action, Oakland Housing
Authority v. Walker, case #011040, Oakland-Piedmont-
Emeryville Judicial District, seeking my eviction.
4. The unlawful detainer complaint alleges that:
On August 7, 1997, Oakland Housing Authority
officers conducting a security check at your
complex, which is a senior citizen building, contacted
Kelly Shine. Shine, who was not a senior citizen and
very fidgety showed signs of being a narcotics user.
Officers contacted Shine and a check was conducted.
Officers discovered that Shine is on probation with a
search clause for narcotics. Officers invoked the
search privilege recovering one rock of cocaine and a
cocaine pipe. Shine was arrested for possession of
narcotics and paraphernalia. Shine told officers she
was at your unit with a friend who lived with you.
You are the only resident listed on your lease.
Officers went to your unit and contacted you. You
gave officers permission to search your unit, and
once inside they contacted Shine’s minor child,
Shirley Hardaway, who was wearing a thin
nightgown and appeared to be residing in your unit,
Marguerite Wise and Eleanor Randle, who has had
several narcotics arrests at your complex.
38
As officers searched your unit, they recovered a
cardboard box inside your bedroom containing a
plate with suspected rock cocaine chips and four
metal crack cocaine pipes. Randle, who had a
cocaine pipe pinned inside her jacket, was arrested
for possession of narcotics paraphernalia. In
addition, officers observed a large amount of
women’s clothing and personal items throughout
you unit. You denied that anyone was residing with
you. A lease violation was drafted.
A week later, August 12, 1997, OHA officers and
your housing manager returned to your unit to
conduct a follow-up check. During the August 7
contact with you, officers had observed a sign
posted on your front door stating “oxygen no
smoking.” However, your guests were smoking
inside your unit. During that contact officers also
observed an oxygen machine and several oxygen
bottles. As officers and your manager entered your
unit with your permission, they again contacted
Hardaway in your bedroom wearing a night gown
and robe. You again denied that Hardaway resided
in your unit. Officers found a rock cocaine pipe
inside a bag of hair rollers. As officers informed you
of the paraphernalia you stated, you could not
control what people brought into your unit. A lease
violation was drafted.
On October 11, 1997, Oakland Housing Authority
officers conducting a security check inside your
complex, contacted Eleanor Randle in the lobby
area. Randle told officers she had just left your unit
and her friend Shirley Hardaway was still inside
your unit. Officers were aware of Randle’s narcotic
39
activity and prior arrest at your unit. Officers
contacted you in your unit and you consented to a
search. Once inside, officers contacted Shirley
Hardaway sitting on a sofa in your living room.
Hardaway was asked to sit in another area as
officers conducted their search. In the creases of
your sofa where Hardaway had been sitting officers
recovered a glass cocaine pipe. Hardaway admitted
to using rock cocaine, but denied that the pipe
belonged to her. Hardaway was cited for possession
of narcotics paraphernalia.
5. I have informed all of my family members, my
caretakers, and my guests, that drug related activity
and criminal activity are not permitted in my home or
on the premises.
6. The complaint does not allege that I had any
prior knowledge of the alleged criminal activity or that
I personally engaged in criminal activity, which is the
basis of the eviction action.
7. I have answered the complaint denying the
allegations.
8. My in-home caretaker was Eleanor Randle. I
fired her shortly after I learned that she had been -
accused of drug activity in my apartment.
9. Idid not engage in any criminal drug activity. I
had no knowledge of any criminal drug activity
occuring on the permises. I did not permit activity or
cause other others to engage in activity, because I had
no knowledge of any activity.
40
I declare that the preceding is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and recollection under the
penalty of perjury. Executed in Oakland on March 2,
1998.
/s) HERMAN WALKER
HERMAN WALKER
41
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C-98-00781 CRB
PEARLIE RUCKER, HERMAN WALKER, WILLIE LEE
AND BARBARA HILL, PLAINTIFFS
Vv.
HAROLD DAVIS, OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DOEs I-XXX, DEFENDANTS
[DATE: May 8, 1998
TIME: 10 a.m.
DEPT.: 8 [illegible] F'1.]
DECLARATION OF PEARLIE RUCKER IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DECLARATION OF PEARLIE RUCKER
I, Pearlie Rucker, depose and say;
1. I am a tenant at 2005 East 21st Street #102,
Oakland CA 94606. I am 63 years old. I have been a
tenant there for about 21 years.
2. My landlord is the Oakland Housing Authority.
3. I have been served a summons and complaint in
an unlawful detainer action, Oakland Housing
42
Authority v. Rucker, case #012528, Oakland-Piedmont-
Emeryville Judicial District, seeking my eviction.
4. The unlawful detainer complaint alleges that:
On March 9, 1997, and Oakland Housing Author-
ity officer on patrol in the block of E. 19th
Street, observed defendant’s daughter Gelinda
Rucker, who is listed on defendant’s lease as a
resident, drinking an alcoholic beverage in public.
When the officer contacted Rucker she attempted to
conceal the alcohol. Rucker, who was near defen-
dant’s complex, appeared to be under the influence
and was arrested for being drunk in public. A
search of Rucker revealed one rock of suspected
cocaine and a crack cocaine pipe. She was addition-
ally charged with possession of narcotics and para-
phernalia. Rucker listed defendant’s address as her
residence.
On September 19, 1997, Oakland police officers
on patrol in the 1400 block of 23rd Avenue, which is
an area high in use and sale of narcotics, observed
defendant’s son Michael Rucker and William Knight
loitering at a bus stop. Rucker was contacted and
subsequently arrested for a warrant. As officers
searched Rucker, they recovered a piece of rock
cocaine. He was additionally charged with posses-
sion of narcotics. Rucker, who is not listed on defen-
dant’s lease as a resident, listed defendant’s address
as his residence.
5. Ihave answered the unlawful detainer complaint
denying the allegations.
43
. 6. My son, Michael Rucker, has not lived with me
since the early 1980's,
7. My daughter, Gelinda Rucker, is severely
mentally disabled. She was born with a mental
disability. She started seeing a psychiatrist when she
was 13 or 14 years old. The doctor said she had to be on
regular medication. She began taking a medication
which the doctor prescribed, I think it was prozac. She
is incapable of caring for herself or for her children. As
a result, I am the primary caregiver for my grand-
children. For her mental disability, my daughter
receives SSI. About seven years ago I suspected my
daughter had an alcohol problem based on physical
observation, and I had her placed in a residential drug
and alcohol treatment program. When she got out of
the program, I thought she had been cured. When |
first suspected that she had an alcohol problem, I began
searching her room when I cleaned it, about once or
twice a week, for any evidence of drug or alcohol
problems. I have continued to do so over the last 7
years or so, up through the present. I have never found
any drugs or drug paraphernalia. I have found beer
cans and occasionally a wine bottle. Prior to her recent
arrest, I never observed any physical signs of drug use.
She is presently incarcerated and in a drug program.
8. The complaint does not allege that I had an
y
= nt “sa of ee criminal activity or that
perso engaged in criminal activity, which i
basis of the eviction action. —
9. I did not engage in any criminal dru ivi
g activity. I
had no knowledge of any criminal drug activity
occuring on the premises. I did not permit activity or
ay
cause other others to engage in activity, because I had
no knowledge of any activity.
10. I have informed all of my family members that
drug related activity is not permitted in my home or on
the premises.
I declare that the preceding is _~ and —-
the best of my knowledge and recollection under
penalty of perjury. Executed in Oakland on March 3,
1998.
/s/) PEARLIE RUCKER
PEARLIE RUCKER
45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C-98-00781
PEARLIE RUCKER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v.
HAROLD DAVIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
Filed: Apr. 17, 1998
DECLARATION OF RON SMITH
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I, Ron Smith, declare:
1. Iam a Housing Manager for the Western Dis-
trict of defendant Oakland Housing Authority (“OHA”).
I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge
and can competently testify thereto if called as a wit-
ness.
2. I manage OHA’s apartments located at 2005
East 21st Street, Apt. 102, Oakland, including, the
apartment leased by plaintiff, Pearlie Rucker.
3. Ms. Rucker has signed a lease, which at Para-
graph 9, details the obligations of the tenant and his or
her guests and members of household, in pertinent part:
46
Tenant is also responsible for causing members of
her household and guests to comply with the
following: . . .
m. To assure that tenant, any member of the house-
hold, a guest, or another person under the tenant s
control, shall not engage in: (i) Any criminal
activity that threatens the health, a i oad Ms
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other pu
housing ee Taek drug-related
criminal activity on or near the premises (e.g.,
manufacture, sale, distribution, use, or possession of
illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia, etc.)
(A true and correct copy of Ms. Rucker’s lease is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.)
4. Paragraph 12 of the lease provides OHA with a
right to inspect the units, as follows:
c. Management may enter tenant’s dwelling unit
as follows:
1) Management shall provide Tenant with two
days written notice stating the purpose of
its entry to the dwelling unit. Management
entry shall be between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. for the purpose of per-
forming routine inspections and mainte-
nance and for making repairs and improve-
ments.
2) Management may enter the premises at any
time without advance notification when
there is a reasonable cause to believe an
emergency exists.
47
5. Inspections of units are conducted when, among
other things, tenants are suspected of lease violations,
including violations of Paragraph 9.
6. As far as I am aware, all leases, including those
of private landlords, include provisions similar to
Paragraph 12, allowing the landlord/housing manager
to inspect its property under like circumstances.
7. In addition to executing the lease, on a yearly
basis, Ms. Rucker signs a form entitled “Occupant’s
Responsibility,” which provides, in pertinent part:
As I am the lessee of this apartment, I am respon-
sible for all damages and the conduct of all activities
in my apartment. Should I violate the terms and
conditions of my lease, I am aware that I could be
subject to legal action.
(A true and correct copy of the Occupant’s Respon-
sibility form most recently executed by Ms. Rucker is
attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.)
8. Further, Ms. Rucker signs a yearly form entitled
“Tenant Agreement To Maintain Drug-Free Environ-
ment,” which provides, in pertinent part:
I am aware of the fact that Paragraph 9, Section m,
of my lease specifically prohibits me, my household
members or guest from using, selling or possessing
any illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia on the
Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) property. I also
understand that if I or any member of my household
or guest should violate this lease provision, I may
face eviction action against me to terminate my
tenancy with the Housing Authority.
48
(A true and correct copy of the Tenant Agreement To
Maintain Drug-Free Environment form most recently
executed by Ms. Rucker is attached hereto as Exhibit
“CO” ) :
9. When an apartment is vacated, OHA leases the
apartment to the next person listed on a prioritized
waiting list.
10. If an inspection of an apartment is conducted on
the basis that a tenant and/or guest and/or member of
the household is believed to be in violation of Paragraph
9, section m, by using, selling or possessing any illegal
drugs or drug paraphernalia on OHA property, that
inspection is done for the purpose of determining
violations of the lease, and not for purposes of investi-
gating and/or prosecuting for any criminal conduct.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct, and that this declaration was executed on April
16, 1998 in the city of Oakland, County of Alameda,
California.
/s/) RONSMITH
RON, SMITH
OHA\RUCK\SMITH.DEC
DECLARATION OF RON SMITH
C-98-00781
49
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
OAKLAND CALIFORNIA
TENANT LEASE
Name of Tenant PEARLINE D. RUCKER
Account/Client No. 230581/408468 _
Tenant
Dwelling Unit No. 102 _
Number of Bedrooms (Unit Size) 4.
Address 2005 E 2lst Street #102,
Oakland, CA 94606-4270
Monthly Rent$ 261,00
Effective Date: § February 1, 1997
The Housing Authority of the City of Oakland, Cali-
fornia (Management) leases to PEARLINE D. RUCKER
(Tenant), the dwelling unit described above under the
terms and conditions stated within this lease. Except
where otherwise indicated, the term “dwelling unit”
refers to the apartment unit and adjacent area assigned
for the Tenant’s exclusive use and to the area(s)
assigned in paragraph 10 of this lease.
50
1. TERM OF THE LEASE
This lease is for a period of one calendar month.
. RENEWAL OF LEASE
This lease shall automatically renew each calendar
month, unless terminated by either Management or
Tenant as provided in this lease.
. MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD
Only the following persons may live in the dwelling
unit with the named Tenant:
Name Date of Birth Social Security #
3)
51
for reasons stated in Paragraph 6 of this
lease.
The Tenant shall be responsible for rent for
thirty (30) days after they give written notice
of their intent to vacate; or in the absence of
such written notice, for thirty (30) days from
the day Management learns of the vacancy.
If the end of this thirty (30) day period does
not coincide with the end of a month, the rent
due under this provision shall be prorated at
a daily charge of 1/30 of the monthly rent
amount.
RUCKER, GELINDA 05/16/54
FLETCHER, JACQUELINE 06/15/78
ROBINSON, LATASHA 05/15/82
4. USE OF THE DWELLING UNIT BY MEMBERS OF
573-21-2526 4) If Tenant is transferring from one Oakland
548-69-3773 Housing Authority apartment to another,
557-75-8995 any charges due under the previous leases
THE HOUSEHOLD
No one other than those persons listed above may
live in the dwelling unit for more than fourteen (14)
days with the Tenant. (See paragraph 7.) Tenant is
responsible for notifying Management of any change
in his/her household within fourteen (14) days after
the change occurs.
. PAYMENTS DUE UNDER THE LEASE
a. Rental Payments
1) The first rent payment for the period
beginning , 19___, and ending a 19__,
is $__. This payment is due at the time this
lease is signed.
2) The monthly rent of $ 261.00 is due on or
before the first of each month beginning Feb-
ruary 1, 1997. This month rent may change
are due under this lease.
b. Utilities
Management shall pay the full cost of the
following utilities and services:
1)
2)
Water, garbage collection, sewer service
The following will be provided or furnished
by Management
YES NO YES NO
O @ Gas QO W& Gas Range
O @Electricity O @ Electric Range
O @& Heat QO @ Refrigerator
Tenant is responsible for the provision and pay-
ment of the full cost of any other utilities used.
Management is not responsible for failure to
furnish utilities by reason of any cause beyond
its control.
c.
52
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR CHARGES
Tenant shall pay such charges for the repair of
those damages which are beyond normal wear
and tear to the dwelling unit, development
buildings, facilities or common areas and for the
cleaning and extermination made necessary by
the action(s) or neglect of the Tenant, members of
the household or guests.
All charges shall be billed according to the
Schedule of Charges for Services or Repairs
posted in the District and Central Management
offices. The Charge schedule may be changed
from time to time by Management and will be
posted for thirty (30) days by Management before
its effective date. Such schedule or its revisions
are incorporated by reference herein. The bill
shall specify the damages, work done, and the
cost. Payment shall not be due until two weeks
after written notice to the tenant of the charges.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
1. Amount
Tenant shall pay for a Security Deposit of the
lesser of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) or
the equivalent of two months gross rent.
2. Payment method
a. Payment of the security deposit as deter-
mined in #1 above, is due at move-in unless the
resident provides a stove, or in the case of
extreme hardship.
b. If a resident provides a stove, or in the case
of extreme hardship, the resident shall pay the
security deposit in installments as follows:
53
Upon commencement of tenancy, tenant
shall pay fifty dollars ($50.00) of the secu-
rity deposit. The balance shall be paid in
ten (10) equal installments (rounded off to
the nearest dollar), with the first install-
ment due at the beginning of the second
month of tenancy.
The security deposit shall be used by Manage-
ment at lease termination to pay for the cost of
repair of damages, (including cleaning of the
dwelling unit, development buildings, facilities,
and common areas) caused by the Tenant, mem-
bers of the household, or guests. The security
deposit shall also be used by Management to
apply to any rent or other charges owed by the
Tenant at lease termination.
Management shall return the security deposit or
any balance of the deposit within fourteen (14)
days after the Tenant vacates the dwelling unit.
6. REDETERMINATION OF RENT, DWELLING UNIT
SIZE AND ELIGIBILITY
a. Tenant shall report to Management within four-
teen (14) days of occurrence, any change in the
household composition (such as changes in the
number of persons in the household). Failure to
do so will result in a lease violation which may
cause Management to take steps to terminate
the lease.
. All determinations, referred to in this paragraph
Shall be made in accordance with Management’s
approved Occupancy Policy and Schedule of
Rents, available in the District Housing Manage-
ment Office.
c.
54
Regular Redeterminations
1) Management shall periodically determine:
2)
3)
a) Whether Tenant’s rent should be changed.
b) Whether Tenant’s dwelling unit size is
still appropriate for Tenant’s family com-
position.
The periodic determination referred to in
section c. 1) above shall occur:
a) Upon occupancy.
b) Once each year.
c) Other times as needed.
As requested by Management at the time
specified in section c.2 above, Tenant shall
provide accurate, written, current, verifiable
information to Management as to:
a. Composition of household (number of
people in Tenant’s household, their sex and
any other information required by Man-
agement).
b. The source and amount of income received
by everyone in Tenant’s household. Cur-
rent written verification acceptable to
Management must be provided within
fifteen (15) days of notification to Tenant.
c. Any unusual expenses or circumstances
which create a financial burden on the
household (For example, some medical
costs or child care costs may be considered
unusual expenses, when verified in writ-
ing).
55
Failure to do so is a material violation of this
lease.
d. Interim Redeterminations
1) The rent shown in paragraph 5, or as ad-
justed as set forth herein, shall remain in
effect during the period between regular
redeterminations unless Tenant’s rent should
be adjusted in accordance with the Author-
ity’s Occupancy Policy and Schedule of Rents.
The Tenant is responsible for providing writ-
ten proof of such change to Management.
2) When Tenant reports a change in household
circumstances (such as a decrease in income)
Tenant’s rent shall be redetermined and
adjusted as indicated by the Authority’s
Occupancy Policy Schedule of Rents.
3) In the event Tenant’s rent is reduced as set
forth herein, Tenant shall within thirty (30)
days of occurrence report any further change
in family circumstances (such as an increase in
income) which occur prior to the next regular
redetermination
e. If Management determines that the size of the
Tenant’s present unit is no longer appropriate to
Tenant’s household composition in accordance with
the Authority’s Occupancy Policy, the Tenant
shall move to a unit of an appropriate size within
thirty (30) days of notification by Management of
the availability of an appropriate size. vacant
dwelling unit. If the tenant fails to move as
requested by Management, Management has the
right to take appropriate legal action, as deter-
mined by Management.
56
f. When the Tenant does not agree with Manage-
ment’s redetermination of the amount of rent
payable by the Tenant (not including determina-
tion of the Housing Authority’s schedule of
Utility Allowances) or determines that the Tenant
must transfer to another unit based on family
composition, the Tenant may ask for an explana-
tion of the determination and request a hearing
under the Housing Authority’s Grievance Pro-
cedures.
7. TENANT’S RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPY
Tenant’s household has the right to exclusive use
and occupancy of the dwelling unit. This right
includes having guests stay in the dwelling unit
up to fourteen (14) days, or a longer period only
when the prior written consent of Management
57
e. Maintain in good and safe working order and
condition electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heat-
ing, ventilating, and other facilities and appli-
ances, including elevators, supplies or required
to be supplied by Management.
f. Provide and maintain trash and garbage recep-
tacles for the deposit of garbage, rubbish and
roy A Mee oes from the dwelling unit by
e tenant in accordance with
te mo paragraph 9.h of
g. Supply running water and reasonable amounts
of hot water and reasonable amounts of heat at
appropriate times of the year (according to
local custom and usage) except where heat or
hot water is generated by an installation within
the Tenant’s exclusive control is supplied by a
has been obtained. direct utility connection.
7 MANAGEMENT'S ptascaaaili h. Notify tenant of the specific grounds for any
Management is obligated to: proposed adverse action by Management.
a. Maintain the dwelling unit, development build- 9. OBLIGATIONS OF TENANT, MEMBERS OF
ings, facilities, and common areas in a decent, HOUSEHOLD, AND GUESTS
safe and sanitary condition Tenant is obligated to comply with the following
b. Comply with the requirements of the appli-
cable building codes, housing codes, and regu-
lations of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), materially affect-
ing health and safety.
Make necessary repairs to the premises.
. Keep development buildings, facilities, and com-
mon areas, not otherwise assigned to tenants
for maintenance and upkeep in a clean and safe
condition.
a
rules. Tenant is also responsible for causing mem-
bers of the household and guests to comply with
the follow;ng.
a. To pay rent when due (see Paragraph 5, a).
b. Not to assign the lease or to sublease the
dwelling unit.
c. Not to provide accommodations for boarders or
lodgers.
58
. To use the dwelling unit solely as a private
dwelling for the Tenant and the Tenant’s
household as identified in Paragraph 3, and not
to use the dwelling unit or permit its use for
any other purpose.
. To abide by the House Rules for the benefit
and well-being of the his’ ag development and
the tenants as posted in the District Office, and
by this reference incorporated herein.
. To comply with all obligations imposed upon
Tenants by applicable provisions of building
and housing codes materially affecting health
and safety, incorporated herein.
. To keep the dwelling unit and such other areas
as may be assigned to the tenant for the
tenant’s exclusive use in a clean and safe
condition (E.G. if required resident must
provide an operating stove.)
. To dispose of all garbage, rubbish, and other
waste from the dwelling unit in a sanitary and
safe manner
i. To use only in a reasonable manner all elec-
trical, plumbing, heating, ventilating, air condi-
tioning, elevators and other facilities and ap-
purtenances in the development buildings and
common areas.
j. Torefrain from scattering rubbish, destroying,
defacing, damaging, or removing any part of
the dwelling unit or development.
To pay reasonable charges (other than for wear
and tear) for the repair of damages to the
dwelling unit, development, buildings, facilities,
59
or common areas caused by either intentional
or negligent conduct of Tenant, members of the
household, or guests.
To conduct himself/herself and cause other
persons who are in the dwelling unit or in the
common area of development with Tenant’s
consent to conduct themselves in a manner
which will not disturb neighbors (including
those neighbors who are not tenants of low
rent public housings) peaceful enjoyment of
their housing and which will be conducive to
maintaining the development in a decent, safe
and sanitary condition.
To assure that the tenant, any member of the
household, a guest, or another person under
the tenant’s control, shall not engage in
(i) Any criminal activity that threatens the
health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of
the premises by other public housing residents,
or threatens the health and safety of the hous-
ing authority employees (e.g., violent acts, pos-
session of illegal firearms, electrical/gas meter
tampering, etc.)
(ii) Any drug-related criminal activity on or
—_ the premise (e.g., manufacture, sale distri-
n, use, or possession of illegal drugs or
drug paraphernalia, etc.)
Not to make any repairs or alterations or
install permanently affixed carpet or any equip-
ment including antennas, or to use a water bed
without the prior written consent of
Management.
60
o. Not to keep or permit to keep any dogs, cats,
or other pets in or about the premises which
results in a risk to personal health or safety of
any person or damage to property.
p. Not to create (by act or omission) or permit to
exist any condition on the premises which
results in risk to personal health or safety of
any person or damage to property (if required
resident must provide for the uninterrupted
provision of electric and gas services.)
q. To immediately report to Central Maintenance
any vandalism to the premises and any need
for repair to the interior or exterior of the
dwelling unit and any other area used by the
Tenant in connection with the Tenant’s occu-
pancy of the dwelling unit.
r. To participate in a training program on house-
keeping and home care skills if requested to so
by the Management. Such training shall be
provided by Management.
10. GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
Tenant shall maintain walkways, stairs, landings,
hallways, grounds, patios, and landscaping adjacent to
the dwelling unit. Management must be notified if the
Tenant is unable to maintain the grounds due to the age
or physical condition in the event Tenant neglects to
maintain the areas assigned. Tenant shall pay to Man-
agement all expenses necessary for Management to
maintain or repair these areas.
61
11. Hazardous Defects
Tenant shall take every care to prevent fires, not to
keep any gasoline or gasoline operated device, solvents,
or other combustible materials or substances in any
part of or around the apartment, balconies, or enclosed
spaces and to exercise particular caution with respect
to children playing with matches and/or lighters.
In the event the dwelling unit is damaged to the extent
that conditions are created which are hazardous to life,
health or safety of the occupants
a. Tenant shall immediately notify the fire de-
partment (in case of fire), Central Maintenance,
Security and Management
b. Management shall be responsible for repair of
the dwelling unit within a reasonable time. If
the damage is caused by Tenant, members of
the household or guests, Tenant shall pay the
reasonable costs of repair.
c. Management shall offer standard alternative
housing, if available, where necessary repairs
cannot be made in a reasonable time.
d. In the event repairs are not made within a
reasonable time, or alternative housing is not
available, Tenant shall pay a lower rent in pro-
portion to the seriousness of the damage and
loss of value as a dwelling. Tenant shall not
pay a lower rent if s/he refuses the decent, safe
and sanitary alternative housing or if the dam-
age was caused by Tenant, members of the
household or guests.
12. INSPECTIONS AND ACCESS
a. Before move-in, Management and Tenant shall
inspect the dwelling unit. Management shall
give Tenant a written statement of conditions
of the dwelling unit and the equipment pro-
vided with the unit. The statement shall be
verified and signed by Management and
Tenant.
. When Tenant moves out, Management shail
inspect the unit and furnish tenant with a writ-
ten statement of damages for which Tenant
is responsible. Such statement is subject to
modification upon further inspection by the
Maintenance Department. Tenant may inspect
the unit with Management unless Tenant leaves
without giving prior notice.
. Management may enter tenant’s dwelling unit
as follows:
1) Management shall provide Tenant with two
days written notice stating the purpose of
its entry to the dwelling unit. Management
entry shall be between the hours of 8:00 and
4:30 p.m. for the purposes of performing
2) Management may enter the premises at any
time without advance notification when
there is a reasonable cause to believe that
an emergency exists, and
3) If all adult members of the household are
absent at the time of entry, Management
shall leave in the dwelling unit a written
63
statement specifying the date, time and
purpose of entry.
13. NOTICE
Any notice to Tenant from Management shall
be in writing, a) delivered personally to Tenant
or to an adult member of Tenant’s household,
or b) sent by prepaid first class mail properly
addressed to Tenant. If the Tenant is visually
impaired, any notice to the tenant of an ad-
verse action will be in an accessible format.
Any notice Tenant gives to Management shall
be in writing, delivered either to the District
Management Office responsible for the de-
velopment in which the dwelling unit is located,
or Management’s Central Office.
14. TERMINATION OF THE LEASE
a. This lease may be terminated by Tenant at any
time by giving thirty (30) days written notice
to Management in the manner specified in
Paragraph 13. Tenant shall leave the dwelling
unit in a clean and good condition and return
the keys to Management when Tenant moves
out.
If, though any cause, a signer of the lease
ceases to be a member of Tenant’s household,
this lease shall terminate. A new lease may be
executed and signed by the responsible re-
maining adult member of the household pro-
vided s/he conduct his or herself as required by
the terms and provisions of the lease and the
family continues to be eligible for low-rent
housing. .
64
If Tenant transfers to another apartment
operated by Management, this lease shall ter-
minate and a new lease shall be executed for
the dwelling unit into which Tenant moves.
Management may terminate or refuse to renew
this lease for the Tenant’s serious or repeated
violation of material terms of this lease, such as
not making payments due, not complying with
paragraph 9, or other good cause.
Management shall give Tenant written notice
of termination of the lease, stating specific
grounds for termination, and informing the
tenant of the right to examine documents in
the tenant’s file directly related to the termi-
nation of tenancy, by:
1) Fourteen (14) days in the case of failure to
pay rent;
2) A reasonable time proportionate to the
urgency of the situation in the case of crea-
tion or maintenance of a threat to the health
or safety of other tenants or Management’s
employees. Under this provision, Manage-
ment considers any fire caused by the
action or failure to act on the part of the
Tenant, household members, or guests as
grounds for termination of the lease for the
affected apartment or other apartment to
which the Tenant and Tenant’s household
have been transferred. Management also
considers any criminal activity that threat-
ens the health, safety or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the development by other
residents or any drug-related activity on or
15,
16.
17.
18.
65
near such premises by Tenant, members of
household, or guests as grounds for termi-
nation under this provision.
3) Thirty (30) days in all other cases.
ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY
If Tenant is absent from the dwelling unit for four-
teen (14) consecutive days and rent is owed. Ten-
ant shall, at the option of Management, be con-
sidered to have abandoned the dwelling unit.
Management may then proceed to repossess the
unit and dispose of the tenant’s personal property
pursuant to state law.
WAIVER OF LEASE PROVISIONS
Management does not give up any of its rights to
enforce the provisions of this lease unless it does so
in writing. For example, Management does not
give up its right to pursue an eviction action: if it
collects rent knowing that Tenant has not fulfilled
Tenant’s responsibilities under this lease.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
All disputes about the lease or concerning the
responsibilities of Tenant’s household or Manage-
ment shall be resolved in accordance with the
Oakland Housing Authority Grievance Procedure.
The Grievance Procedure is posted in the District
and Central Management Offices and is incor-
porated in this lease by reference.
ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COSTS
In the event that the Authority or Tenant shall
commence any legal action or proceeding against
the other to enforce any convenant, term or con-
66
dition of this lease, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover an award of reasonable -ttorney
fees and court costs.
19. PROVISION FOR MODIFICATION
a. Changes to this lease, other than changes in
Tenant rent amount, shall be written addendum
signed by both Management and Tenant.
b. The Schedule of Charges for Service and Repairs,
— S$chedule of Rents, Re-examination Schedule,
House Rules, and Grievance Procedure, all in-
corporated into this lease by reference, may be
changed from time-to-time by Management.
Tenant shall be given thirty (30) days written
notice setting forth the proposed changes,
the reasons for them, and providing Tenant with
an opportunity to make written comments.
Tenant’s written comments shall be taken into
consideration by Management before the pro-
posed changes become effective. A copy of such
notice shall be
1) Delivered directly or mailed to Tenant; or
2) Posted in the District and Central Manage-
ment Offices.
By signing below, Tenant and Management enter into
this lease which shall take effect on the “Effective date”
shown on the top of page 1 of this lease.
HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
67
PEARLIE RUCKER 12-17-96
TENANT (Date)
TENANT (Date)
By_ (illegible) 12-17-96
PHA (Date)
Title Housing Manager _
PHA (Date)
68
AN
QHA OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY
OCCUPANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
I, the undersigned, am aware that under the terms and
conditions of the Housing Lease I just signed that it is a
violation to allow anyone not listed on my lease to
reside in my apartment.
As I am the lessee of this apartment, I am responsible
for all damages and the conduct of all activities in my
apartment.
Should I violate the terms and conditions of my lease, I
am aware that I could be subject to legal action.
Lessee PEARLIE RUCKER
PEARLIE RUCKER
Date 4/13/98
WD 230581 408468
RUCKER, PEARLIE
2005 E 21st. 102
OAKLAND, CA 94606-4270
Witnessed RONALD SMITH
RONALD SMITH
Housing Manager
Date 4/13/98
HE 9007
69
OKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY
TENANT AGREEMENT
TO MAINTAIN A DRUG-FREE ENVIRONMENT
The Okland Housing Authority’s (OHA) police on drugs
and drug-related criminal activity has been explained to
me by my Housing Manager. Additionally, I have been
told about the federal regulation regarding the “One
Strike” policy, which scates that I may be evicted from
public housing for illegal use of a controlled substance
or abuse of alcohol which interferes with the health,
safety, or right of peaceful enjoyment of the premises
by other residents by myself, any member of my
household or guests.
I am aware of Paragrah 9, Section M, of my Lease
Agreement which specifically prohibits the use, sale or
possession of any illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia on
OHA property by myself, any member of my household
or guests. I am also aware that any drug-related
criminal activity on or off the premises, not just on or
near the premises, by myself or any member of my
household is prohibited. I understand that if I or any
member of my household or guests should violate this
lease provision, my tenancy may be terminated and I
may be evicted.
I agree to comply with the OHA’s policy regarding
drugs and drug-related criminal activity and to do all I
can to prevent the use, sale or possession of drugs in my
unit or the involvement in drug-related criminal
activity by my household or guests. I also agree to
inform all my household members and guests of OHA’s
policy regarding drugs and drug-related criminal
activity.
70
/s/)_ PEARLJE RUCKER
Resident
RONALD SMITH
Housing Manager
HMD 9508 (Rev. 10/96)
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.