Reported / Citable
Background
Charlotte Elizabeth Mitchell, proceeding pro se, moved for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief to require the Galveston Housing Authority to continue Housing Choice Voucher, or Section 8, payments during this case. She alleged that GHA advised her that her housing-assistance payments would stop effective October 31, 2026, creating a risk of eviction or displacement.
At the time of the motion, Mitchell had not requested issuance of a summons for GHA and had not obtained a substantive conference with the authority regarding the requested relief. Her motion sought to preserve the status quo without notice to GHA.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison recommended that the motion be denied without prejudice. Construing the complaint liberally, the magistrate judge treated it as asserting a procedural-due-process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the threatened loss of voucher payments.
The recommendation concluded that Mitchell had not shown a likelihood of success because she did not identify a GHA policymaker or official policy that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation, as required for municipal liability under § 1983. The magistrate judge also found that she had not established irreparable injury, because the record did not show that money damages would be inadequate or that she could not secure decent housing without the subsidy.
Separately, Mitchell did not satisfy Rule 65(b)(1) for ex parte temporary relief: she did not certify her efforts to give GHA proper notice or explain why notice should not be required. Because payment termination was more than three weeks away and Mitchell had not requested a summons despite a prior order, the magistrate judge concluded that she could refile after complying with Rule 65(b)(1).
Key Takeaways
- A housing authority may be sued under § 1983, but municipal liability requires allegations tying the asserted constitutional violation to an official policy or policymaker.
- Potential loss of Section 8 assistance does not alone establish irreparable harm where the plaintiff has not shown that damages would be inadequate.
- An applicant seeking an ex parte TRO must certify notice efforts and explain why notice should be excused under Rule 65(b)(1).
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that emergency housing-related relief still requires a concrete showing on the traditional injunction factors and strict compliance with Rule 65’s notice requirements. Pro se status warrants liberal construction of pleadings, but it does not remove the need to plead a viable municipal-liability theory or support an ex parte request with the required certification.
The recommendation is not a final district-court ruling; the parties had 14 days after service to file written objections.