Engler v. The Salvation Army

5:25-cv-05203Arwd6 de jan. de 2026

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
MARCELINE HOPE ENGLER 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:25-CV-5203
THE SALVATION ARMY 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
On December 6, 2025, the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate
Judge 	for the Western 	District 	of Arkansas, 	performed an initial screening of 	the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 6), finding that the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff Marceline Hope Engler alleges that The Salvation Army prevented her, a
transgender woman, from using the women’s bathroom and then “kicked [her] . . . out.”
See 	Doc. 1, p. 4. Those are the only facts in the Complaint. Although Ms. Engler contends
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on complete diversity, the Complaint fails
to state the citizenship of The Salvation Army. Moreover, Ms. Engler’s claim for damages
is only $900, which is well below the statutory minimum required for diversity jurisdiction.
Despite the above deficiencies, the Magistrate Judge was mindful of the fact that
Ms. Engler proceeds 	pro se 	and briefly considered whether the facts alleged here
amounted to a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. 	See 	Doc. 6, pp. 3–4. The
Magistrate Judge concluded no plausible claims were stated. On December 23, 2025,
Case 5:25-cv-05203-TLB Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
2
Ms. Engler filed an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 7), which triggered a 	de novo 	review of
the record.
Ms. 	Engler’s 	Objection 	apparently 	concedes 	that 	diversity 	jurisdiction 	is
unavailable. However, she suggests that her claim for sex/gender-identity discrimination
arises under a federal statute, namely 42 U.S.C. § 3601 	et seq., the Fair Housing Act
(“FHA”)—though this statute appears nowhere in her Complaint. Ms. Engler is correct that
§ 3604 of the FHA prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a “dwelling” on the basis
of sex. However, the Complaint is silent as to the nature of the housing relationship
between Ms. Engler and The Salvation Army. Assuming she was housed at a Salvation
Army homeless shelter, the Complaint does not explain where the shelter was or how
long Ms. Engler stayed. Thus, the Court cannot begin to analyze whether such housing
qualifies as a “dwelling” under the FHA. 	See 	42 U.S.C. § 	lling’ means any
building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for
occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered
for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure,
or portion thereof.”).
Furthermore, courts around the country disagree about whether homeless shelters
qualify as “dwellings” under the FHA. 	See, e.g., 	Hunter ex rel. A.H. v. D.C., 64 F.Supp.3d
158, 177 (D.D.C. 2014) (homeless shelter is a dwelling under the FHA); 	Intermountain
Fair Hous. Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1109 (D.
Idaho 	2010) (homeless 	shelter 	is 	not 	a 	dwelling 	under 	the FHA); 	Smith 	v.
The Salvation Army, 2015 WL 5008261, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) (applying the
Case 5:25-cv-05203-TLB Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
3
Third Circuit's test in concluding that a shelter was not a dwelling under the FHA). One
thing is certain: These courts apply fact-dependent tests to discern whether a shelter is
covered under the FHA; but, as previously stated, Ms. Engler’s Complaint is devoid of
relevant facts that could assist in this inquiry.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED 	that the Objection to the R&R is 	OVERRULED,
the 	R&R 	is 	ADOPTED 	IN 	FULL, 	and 	the 	Complaint 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED 	on this 6th 	day of January, 2026.
___________________________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05203-TLB Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.