Nos. 00-1770 & 00-1781 

In the Supreme Court of the United States 

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 
Solicitor General 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 
(202) 514-2217 

Counsel of Record 
for Petitioner 

United States Department of 

Housing and Urban 
Development 
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 
PAUL RENNE 
JAMES DONATO 
WHITTY SOMVICHIAN 

Cooley Godward LLP 
One Maritime Plaza, 
20th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 693-2000 
Counsel of Record 
for Respondents 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: MAY 24, 2001 
CERTIORARI GRANTED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California (S.F.) dockets entries ............ 

1 

United States Court of Appeals docket entries, 

Nos. 98-16322 & 98-16542 ........................................... 

5 

First amended complaint for injunctive relief and 
declaratory relief .......................................................... 
10 

Defendants Harold Davis and Oakland Housing 

Authority’s request for judicial notice (dated 
Apr. 17, 1998) ................................................................ 

27 
Declaration of Barbara Hill (dated May 8, 1998)............ 
30 

Declaration of Willie Lee (dated May 8, 1998) ............... 
33 

Declaration of Herman Walker (dated May 8, 1998) .... 
36 

Declaration of Pearlie Rucker (dated May 8, 1998) ...... 
41 

Declaration of Ron Smith in opposition to plaintiffs’ 
motion for preliminary injunction ............................ 
45 

OHA Tenant Lease ............................................................. 
49 

OHA Occupants responsibility ......................................... 
68 

OHA tenant agreement to maintain a drug-free 
environment .................................................................. 69 

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) ......................... 
1a 

Court of appeals’ order (Aug. 18, 2000) ........................... 
68a 

Court of appeals’ opinion (Feb. 14, 2000) ........................ 
70a 

District court memorandum, order and preliminary 
injunction (June 19, 1998) .......................................... 138a 

(I) 

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- 
cv-00781] (mh) 

* * * * * 

(1) 

2 

_________________________________________________ 

DOCKET 
DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS 

_________________________________________________ 

3/4/98 4 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] (mcl) [Entry date 
03/05/98] 

* * * * * 

4/3/98 15 

DECLARATION by Willie Lee 

on behalf of Plaintiffs re 
motion for preliminary injunc- 
tion [14-1] [3:98-cv-00781] 
(mcl) [Entry date 04/06/98] 

4/3/98 16 DECLARATION by Barbara 

Hill on behalf of Plaintiffs re 
motion for preliminary 
injunction [14-1] [3:98-cv- 
00781] 

4/3/98 17 DECLARATION by Pearlie 

Rucker on behalf of Plaintiffs 
re motion for preliminary 
injunction [14-1] [3:98-cv- 
00781] 

3 

_________________________________________________ 

DOCKET 
DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS 

_________________________________________________ 

4/3/98 18 DECLARATION by Herman 

Walker on behalf of Plaintiffs 
re motion for preliminary 
injunction [14-1] [3:98-cv- 
00781] (mcl) [Entry date 
04/06/98] 

* * * * * 

4/17/98 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-cv-00781] (mcl) [Entry 
date 04/02/98] 

* * * * * 

6/19/98 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 

4 

_________________________________________________ 

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, servants . . . 
are preliminarily enjoined, un- 
til further 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] (mcl) [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]. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

8/13/98 Filed original and 15 copies Appellant U.S. 

Dept. of HUD opening brief * * *. 

* * * * * 

8/25/98 DOCKETED CASE AND ENTERED 

APPEARANCE of counsel [98-16542]. 

6 

_________________________________________________ 

DATE PROCEEDINGS 

_________________________________________________ 

8/27/98 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. * * *. 

9/15/98 Filed original and 15 copies Appellant 

Harold Davis & Oakland Housing * * *. 

* * * * * 

10/6/98 Received Amicus Center for The Com- 
munity Interest brief * * * 

* * * * * 

10/28/98 Filed original and 15 copies appellees’ 43 
pages brief * * * 

* * * * * 

12/10/98 Filed original and 15 copies Harold Davis’ & 

Oakland Housing reply brief * * * 

12/15/98 Filed original and 15 copies U.S. Dept. of 

HUD reply brief, * * * 

* * * * * 

2/17/99 Filed original and 15 copies Appellees’ 
supplemental brief in response to amicus 
brief * * * 

7 

_________________________________________________ 

DATE PROCEEDINGS 

_________________________________________________ 

3/12/99 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED * * * 

4/2/99 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 1437d(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? 

* * * 

4/16/99 Filed original and 15 copies Appellant U.S. 

Dept. of HUD’s supplemental brief of 7 
pages * * * 

4/16/99 Filed original and 15 copies Appellants 

Harold Davis & Oakland Housing in 98- 
16542 supplemental brief of 7 pages * * * 

4/16/99 Filed original and 15 copies Appellees’ in 
98-16322 supplemental brief of 17 pages 

* * * 

2/14/00 FILED OPINION: The order granting the 
preliminary injunction is REVERSED, and 
the preliminary injunction is VACATED. 

* * * 

8 

_________________________________________________ 

DATE PROCEEDINGS 

_________________________________________________ 

* * * * * 

8/18/00 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. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

9/15/00 Filed original and 20 copies Oakland 

Housing supplemental brief * * * 

9/18/00 Filed original and 15 copies Appellees 

Pearlie Rucker Herman Walker Willie Lee, 
Barbara Hill supplemental brief * * * 

* * * * * 

9/19/00 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 * * * 

9 

_________________________________________________ 

DATE PROCEEDINGS 

_________________________________________________ 

1/24/01 FILED OPINION: AFFIRMED * * * 

* * * * * 

10 

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, DOES I-XXX, DEFENDANTS 

[Filed: Mar. 4, 1998] 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 
RELIEF AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

JURISDICTION 

PLAINTIFFS P EARLIE RUCKER, HERMAN 
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 P EARLIE 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 DOES 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 

Rucker, and is limited in her ability to control the acts 
of Gelinda Rucker, due to Gelinda’s mental disability. 

10. For the past seven years, Pearlie Rucker has 
searched the room of Gelinda Rucker looking for 
evidence of alcohol and drug use. She has never found 
any drugs or drug paraphernalia. 

Pearlie Rucker has 
never seen Gelinda physically manifest any sign of drug 
use. She has warned Gelinda and others that any drug 
use or criminal activity on the premises can result in 
eviction. See the Declaration of Pearlie Rucker. 

PLAINTIFF HERMAN WALKER 

11. PLAINTIFF HERMAN WALKER is 75 years old 
and disabled. The left side of his body, particularly his 
left hand, is stiff and semi-paralyzed. He is hard of 
hearing, has problems walking, usually needs a cane, 
and is periodically put on oxygen due to shortness of 
breath. He is no longer capable of living independently 
and requires an in-home health care taker. 

12. PLAINTIFF WALKER resides at 1621 Harrison 
Street #1309, Oakland, California, and has lived at his 
premises for 8 years. He lives in the “Senior Housing” 
units of the Oakland Housing Authority. The unlawful 
detainer action filed against him by the Oakland 
Housing Authority contains no allegations that he 
personally engaged in drug-related criminal activity or 
that he knew of such activity. 

13. In later 1977, the DEFENDANT OAKLAND 
HOUSING AUTHORITY filed a complaint alleging unlaw- 
ful detainer of the Walker Premises by PLAINTIFF 

WALKER, in the Municipal Court for the State of Cali- 
fornia, Alameda County, Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville 
Judicial District, Oakland Housing Authority v. 

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 
plate with suspected rock cocaine chips and four 

16 

metal crack cocaine pipes. Randle, who had a 
cocaine pipe pinned inside her jacket, was arrested 
for possession of narcotics paraphernalia. In addi- 
tion, officers observed a large amount of women’s 
clothing and personal items throughout your 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 con- 
tact with you, officers had observed a sign posted on 
your front door stating “oxygen no smoking”. How- 
ever, your guests were smoking inside your unit. 
During that contact officers also observed an oxy- 
gen 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 com- 
plex, contacted Eleanor Randle in the lobby area. 
Randle told offices she had just left your unit and 
her friend Shirley Hardaway was still inside your 
unit. Officers were aware of Randle’s narcotics ac- 
tivity and prior arrest at your unit. Officers con- 
tacted you in your unit and you consented to a 
search. Once 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 her household 
that any drug use or criminal activity on the premises 
can result in eviction. 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 

criminal activity has been committed by one of their 
family or household members on or near the premises. 

26. None of these unlawful detainer actions allege 
that the 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 occur- 
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. 

28. Each of the plaintiffs also informed all 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. 

29. Each of the unlawful detainer complaints 
alleges that 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, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of 
the premises by other public housing residents, 
or threatens the health and safety of the housing 
authority employees . . . 

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. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(42 U.S.C. 1983) 

31. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference the 
allegations in Paragraphs 1-30, above. 

32. 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. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(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- 
ble statutory and regulatory provisions. Such acts 
include the issuance of 24 C.F.R. 966.4(f )(12). Accord- 
ingly, PLAINTIFF RUCKER seeks declaratory relief as 
prayed for below, and PLAINTIFFS WALKER, HILL 
and LEE injunctive relief and declaratory relief as 
prayed for below. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(42 U.S.C. 2101, et seq.) 

35. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference the 
allegations in Paragraphs 1-34, above. 

36. The Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 
Chapter 126) protects disabled persons from discrimi- 
nation in public accommodations. PLAINTIFF HER- 
MAN WALKER and PLAINTIFF PEARLIE RUCKER’s 
daughter Gelinda are both “disabled” as defined in 
42 U.S.C. 12102(2). 

37. 42 U.S.C. 12312 provides that “no qualified indi- 
vidual with a disability shall by reason of such dis- 
ability, be excluded from participation in or be denied 
the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a 
public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any 
such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 

38. Discrimination includes: “Failure to make rea- 
sonable accommodations in policies, practices, or proce- 
dures, when such modifications are necessary to afford 
such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 
or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.” 
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). These obligations are 
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 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Illegal contract) 

42. PLAINTIFFS incorporate by reference the alle- 
gations in Paragraph 1-41, above. 

43. The leases provided to PLAINTIFFS by the 

DEFENDANT DAVIS 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 

9. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, 42 
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/ WILLIAM 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 

v. 

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 lodged with the Court and is part of 
the file Oliver v. OHA. 

Dated: April 16, 1998 
Respectfully sumbitted 

LAFAYETTE, KUMAGAI & 

CLARKE 

/s/ SUSAN T. KUMAGAI 

SUSAN T. KUMAGAI 
Attorneys for Defendants 
HAROLD DAVIS and OAKLAND 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

30 

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, DOES I-XXX, DEFENDANTS 

[DATE: May 8, 1998 
TIME: 10 a.m. 

DEPT.: 8 [illegible] Fl.] 

DECLARATION OF BARBARA HILL IN SUPPORT OF 
MOTION 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 63 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 

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 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 

v. 

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] Fl.] 

DECLARATION OF WILLIE LEE IN SUPPORT OF 
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

DECLARATION OF WILLIE LEE 

I, Willie Lee, depose and say; 

1. I am a 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. 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 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 correct to the 
best of my knowledge and recollection under the 
penalty of perjury. Executed in Oakland on February 
26, 1998. 

/s/ WILLIE LEE 

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, DOES I-XXX, DEFENDANTS 

[DATE: May 8, 1998 
TIME: 10 a.m. 

DEPT.: 8 [illegible] Fl.] 

DECLARATION OF HERMAN WALKER IN SUPPORT 
OF MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

DECLARATION OF HERMAN WALKER 

I, Herman Walker, depose and say; 

1. I am a 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. I did 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 

v. 

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] Fl.] 

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 2200 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. I have 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 I 
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 any 
prior knowledge of the alleged criminal activity or that 
I personally engaged in criminal activity, which is the 
basis of the eviction action. 

9. 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 

44 

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 true and correct to 
the best of my knowledge and recollection under the 
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. I am 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, safety, or right to 
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other public 
housing residents, . . . (ii) Any 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 
“C”.) 

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/ RON SMITH 

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 21st 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 ar 

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. 

2. RENEWAL OF LEASE 

This lease shall automatically renew each calendar 
month, unless terminated by either Management or 
Tenant as provided in this lease. 

3. MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD 

Only the following persons may live in the dwelling 
unit with the named Tenant: 

Name Date of Birth Social Security # 

RUCKER, GELINDA 05/16/54 573-21-2526 
FLETCHER, JACQUELINE 06/15/78 

548-69-3773 
ROBINSON, LATASHA 05/15/82 557-75-8995 

4. USE OF THE DWELLING UNIT BY MEMBERS OF 

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. 

5. PAYMENTS DUE UNDER THE LEASE 

a. Rental Payments 

1) The first rent payment for the period 
beginning ____, 19___, and ending ____, 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 

51 

for reasons stated in Paragraph 6 of this 
lease. 

3) 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. 

4) If Tenant is transferring from one Oakland 
Housing Authority apartment to another, 
any charges due under the previous leases 
are due under this lease. 

b. Utilities 

Management shall pay the full cost of the 
following utilities and services: 

1) Water, garbage collection, sewer service 

2) The following will be provided or furnished 
by Management 
YES NO 
YES NO 

o Gas o Gas Range 
o Electricity o Electric Range 
o Heat o 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. 

52 

c. 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 neglec 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. 

d. 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. 

b. 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. 

54 

c. Regular Redeterminations 

1) Management shall periodically determine: 

a) Whether Tenant 
’ s rent should be changed. 

b) Whether Tenant’s dwelling unit size is 
still appropriate for Tenant’s family com- 
position. 

2) The periodic determination referred to in 
section c. 1) above shall occur: 

a) Upon occupancy. 

b) Once each year. 

c) Other times as needed. 

3) 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 pri 

to the next regular 
redetermination 

e. If Management determines that the size of the 
Tenant’s present uni i no longe 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 lega 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 
has been obtained. 

8. MANAGEMENT’S OBLIGATIONS 

Management is obligated to: 

a. Maintain the dwelling unit, development build- 
ings, facilities, and common areas in a decent, 
safe and sanitary condition 

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. 

c. Make necessary repairs to the premises. 

d. Keep development buildings, facilities, and com- 
mon areas, not otherwis assigned to tenants 
for maintenance and upkeep in a clean and safe 
condition. 

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 
other waste removed from the dwelling unit by 
the tenant in accordance with paragraph 9.h of 
this lease. 

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 
direct utility connection. 

h. Notify tenant of the specific grounds for any 
proposed adverse action by Management. 

9. OBLIGATIONS OF TENANT, MEMBERS OF 
HOUSEHOLD, AND GUESTS 

Tenant is obligated to comply with the following 
rules. Tenant is also responsible for causing mem- 
bers of the household and guests to comply with 
the following. 

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 

d. 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. 

e. To abide by the House Rules for the benefit 
and well-being of the housing development and 
the tenants as posted in the District Office, and 
by this reference incorporated herein. 

f. To comply with all obligations imposed upon 
Tenants by applicable provisions of building 
and housing codes materially affecting health 
and safety, incorporated herein. 

g. 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.) 

h. 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. To refrain from scattering rubbish, destroying, 
defacing, damaging, or removing any part of 
the dwelling unit or development. 

k. 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. 

l. 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. 

m. 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 
near the premise (e.g., manufacture, sale distri- 
bution, use, or possession of illegal drugs or 
drug paraphernalia, etc.) 

n. 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. 

62 

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. 

b. When Tenant moves out, Management shall 
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 uni with Management unless Tenant leaves 
without giving prior notice. 

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 and 
4:30 p.m. for the purposes of performing 
routine inspections and maintenance and for 
making repairs and improvements. 

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 

a. 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. 

b. 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. 

b. 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 

c. 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. 

d. 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. 

e. 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 

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. 

15. 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. 

16. 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. 

17. 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. 

18. 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 attorney 
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 Schedul 

of Charges for Service and Repairs, 

Schedule 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 
By (illegible) 12-17-96 

TENANT (Date) PHA (Date) 

___________________________ Title Housing Manager__ 
TENANT (Date) PHA (Date) 

68 

OHA 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 states 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/ PEARLIE RUCKER 
4/13/98 

Resident Date 

RONALD SMITH 4/13/98 
Housing Manager Date 

HMD 9503 (Rev. 10/96)