Civil Rights Lawsuit | Public Housing Policy | North America

Introduction

What happens when the machinery of eviction wrongly targets someone who is legally a tenant, who is blind, and whose home is taken away mid‐snowstorm? In Wilmington, Delaware, William Murphy—legally blind and living with his two minor daughters—was forcibly removed from his rental home in February 2021, despite presenting a valid lease. The eviction stemmed from a writ of possession issued in the name of a prior tenant, applied to Murphy’s occupied unit. A state magistrate later determined the landlord had “weaponized” the eviction process. Murphy subsequently filed suit against the landlord and state actors, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and other rights. While parts of the case have been dismissed, recent appellate developments suggest the lawsuit may resume and raise important questions about due process, disability rights, and the enforcement of eviction orders. (Justia Law)

Factual Background

In November 2020, Murphy and his daughters moved into a row house in Wilmington under a one‐year lease, paying $750 per month with assistance from social services. (WHYY)
In early February 2021, during a snowstorm, three constables arrived at the home with a writ of possession naming a different tenant, Viola Wilson. (Justia Law)
Murphy showed the constables his valid lease, rental assistance documentation and utility bills; but the officers, relying on the writ, ordered the family out within 30 minutes and left them on the street during the winter storm, forcing them to abandon belongings including the urn of Murphy’s late wife and his daughters’ school laptops. (WHYY)
A week later a Delaware Deputy Chief Magistrate concluded that the Murphys had been unlawfully ousted, noting the landlord had “weaponized” the writ originally directed at Wilson in order to evict Murphy and his family. (WHYY)

Legal Issues in the Case

Due Process and Wrongful Eviction

The central question is whether eviction enforcement authorities removed the Murphys without proper legal or factual basis, thus violating procedural safeguards. The use of a writ directed to the wrong party triggers concerns that the constitutional protections around property and possession may have been bypassed.

Disability Rights under the ADA / Section 504

Murphy’s claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act argues that the notice and process for eviction failed to accommodate his blindness—for example, the posted eviction notice was legible only to a sighted person and did not provide accessible format or alternative communication. (CaseMine)
The Third Circuit recently held that such allegations could survive a motion to dismiss, finding that a blind tenant plausibly alleged discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 when a writ was executed on the wrong person with a notice not readable by a blind person. (CaseMine)

Quasi‐Judicial Immunity

Defendants (the constables, the Justice of the Peace Court officials) argued they are shielded by immunity because they acted on a facially valid court order. The district court dismissed many claims on that basis. (CaseMine) The Third Circuit, however, held that immunity may not apply at the pleading stage when the claim challenges the manner and timing of execution rather than the validity of the order. (CaseMine)

Procedural Posture and Recent Developments

The original lawsuit, filed in Delaware federal court, named the landlord (who later settled) and state officials. The district court dismissed the ADA/discrimination claims for failure to plead causation—that is, Murphy did not allege sufficiently that he was evicted because of his disability. (CaseMine)
On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed in part, permitting certain individual‐capacity claims against constables to proceed. The case remains alive in the appellate pipeline and may return for further proceedings. (CaseMine)

Significance and Implications

This case carries significance in several key domains:

• Eviction enforcement: it spotlights what critics refer to as “evict first, ask questions later” practices, i.e., execution of writs with inadequate verification of occupant identity or valid tenancy. (statenislander.org)
• Disability accommodations in judicial processes: the question of whether eviction notices and enforcement actions must be accessible to persons with disabilities is central—and the Third Circuit’s approach indicates courts may apply ADA standards to judicial/eviction contexts.
• Liability of public actors enforcing court orders: the tension between executing facially valid orders and potential liability for wrongful implementation is a recurring theme in judicial accountability.
• Tenant protections and landlord abuse: the magistrate’s finding that the landlord “weaponized” eviction points to systemic vulnerabilities when eviction tools are misused.

Practical Takeaways for Practitioners

• For tenants and advocates: Document all tenancy paperwork, leases and payments—even when eviction appears directed at someone else. If a writ is executed against you, act quickly.
• For counsel representing disabled tenants: Consider ADA/504 claims when eviction notices or process may be inaccessible or discriminating.
• For courts and enforcement officers: Ensure verification of tenant identity, confirm that the person subject to eviction is properly named and notice requirements are met—especially where disabilities may affect comprehension.
• For landlords: Avoid prosecuting eviction actions based on outdated or erroneous claims; doing so may expose you—and associated judicial actors—to liability.

Conclusion

The Murphy case serves as a cautionary tale of how a single mis‐applied eviction writ—executed during a snowstorm against a legally blind tenant—can open the door to complex legal claims spanning constitutional, disability, and property rights. As the litigation proceeds through the appellate process, it offers an important litmus test for how the courts will treat eviction enforcement in the shadow of disability rights and due‐process protections. For the Murphys, it is a personal fight for justice; for the legal community, it may mark a turning point in how eviction systems protect the vulnerable.