Case: Tinsley v. Pierce

4:89-cv-00023 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri

Filed Date: Jan. 17, 1989

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 17, 1989, residents of T.B. Watkins Homes, a public housing development operated by the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, filed a class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the State of Missouri in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by racial discri…

On January 17, 1989, residents of T.B. Watkins Homes, a public housing development operated by the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, filed a class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the State of Missouri in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by racial discrimination in the provision of public housing. Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the court for an injunction to prevent the defendants from demolishing the T.B. Watkins Homes.

On January 3, 1990, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Judge Dean Whipple) certified the plaintiffs as a class, holding that they had a private cause of action under the U.S. Housing Act section regulating demolitions, and that they had established a prima facie Title VIII claim. Tinsley v. Kemp, 750 F.Supp. 1001 (W.D.Mo. 1990).

On November 21, 1991, the parties entered into a Consent Decree, under which the defendants agreed to a comprehensive modernization and rehabilitation of the T.B. Watkins Homes. They agreed to transform the development into safe, decent, and sanitary housing, without any loss of units, to remain viable for at least twenty additional years. The development was to also see improvements in the areas of the playground, park areas, landscaping, outside lighting, and security.

On July 6, 1993, the District Court (Judge Whipple) appointed Robert E. Larson to be the Special Master for the case. On January 22, 1993, the District Court held the defendants in contempt for failure to comply with the Consent Decree, ordering them to pay $86,000 as well as the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

For the next ten years, the parties continued to quibble over the specific terms of the Consent Decree. On October 4, 2004, the District Court ordered them to begin working on a decree.

According to the PACER docket, which is accurate as of 01/12/2007, the District Court continues to oversee the case and is currently awaiting the parties' new Consent Decree proposal.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (1/11/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Whipple, Dean (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Finn, Kelly P. (Missouri)

Hauser, Tim (Missouri)

Levin, Julie E. (Missouri)

Siefkas, Sharon Weedin (Missouri)

Wilson, Carole W. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Castellani, Alleen S. (Missouri)

Daniels, James F.B. (Missouri)

Fields, Taylor (Missouri)

Herold, John W. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Whipple, Dean (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Finn, Kelly P. (Missouri)

Hauser, Tim (Missouri)

Levin, Julie E. (Missouri)

Siefkas, Sharon Weedin (Missouri)

Wilson, Carole W. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Castellani, Alleen S. (Missouri)

Daniels, James F.B. (Missouri)

Fields, Taylor (Missouri)

Herold, John W. (District of Columbia)

James, Joseph (Missouri)

Lines, Jeff (Massachusetts)

Poschel, Vernon (Missouri)

Thomas, Charles M. (Missouri)

VanBebber, Allen C. (Missouri)

Williams, John (Missouri)

Other Attorney(s)

Bath, Thomas J. (Kansas)

Eisenbrandt, James L. (Kansas)

Holtzman, Paul (Massachusetts)

Kurtz, John Wray (Missouri)

Lowndes, Edwin T. (Missouri)

Lundberg, Janet Steckel (Massachusetts)

Mann, Benjamin F. (Missouri)

Pautler, Paul F. Jr. (Missouri)

Shrager, Gail M (Missouri)

Summers, Terrance (Missouri)

Taylor, Andrea (Kansas)

Thum, Terence J. (Missouri)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

Dec. 26, 2007 Docket
11

First Amended Complaint

Tinsley v. Kemp

Feb. 9, 1989 Complaint
50

Opinion

Tinsley v. Kemp

750 F.Supp. 1001

Jan. 3, 1990 Order/Opinion
103

Consent Decree

Tinsley v. Kemp

Nov. 25, 1991 Order/Opinion
137

Order

Tinsley v. Cisneros

July 6, 1993 Order/Opinion
213

Order

Tinsley v. Cisneros

Sept. 6, 1994 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Innovation or Illegitimacy: Remedial Receivership in Tinsley v. Kemp Public Housing Litigation

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke

Through an analysis of Tinsley v. Kemp, a decade-long institutional reform case aimed at changing Kansas City, Missouri public housing, this Article engages in a case study focused on the receivershi… Jan. 1, 2000 http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3613&context=mlr

Docket

Last updated May 13, 2022

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Missouri

Case Type(s):

Public Housing

Special Collection(s):

Court-ordered receiverships

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 17, 1989

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Residents of T.B. Watkins Homes, a public housing development operated by the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri (Kansas City, MO), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1991 - 0

Content of Injunction:

Receivership

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Housing Sales/Rental

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Type of Facility:

Government-run