defendants. The court reviewed the evidence and concluded that defendants had intentionally discriminated by renting the project apartments according to a 75 percent white, 20 percent Hispanic, 5 percent black ratio, and by assigning larger apartments to whites and renting apartments with more favorable subsidies to whites. The court decided that there was ample evidence of violations of section 3604 of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d; and 42 U.S.C. §§19811982. Defendants had claimed that by renting a majority of the apartments to Hasidic Jews, violent confrontations between the Hasidics and neighborhood Puerto Ricans were avoided.

reported at 14 Clearinghouse Rev. 173, June 1980].

After her landlord served her with a notice to vacate, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §1437f(dX1X(B) allows only the housing authority to issue notices to vacate. After a hearing, the parties reached a settlement under which the landlord agreed not to pursue the eviction, HUD agreed to inform the housing authority of the new procedure and the housing authority agreed to institute it.

Counsel notes that apparently only the Brown defendants were instructed to change their eviction procedures and that other housing authorities may not be instructed to change their eviction procedures unless litigation is brought to force such a change.

Complaint Charges Racial Discrimination in City's Refusal to Rezone White Neighborhood to Allow Construction of Integrated Public Housing

29,971. Massey v. City of Charlotte (W.D.N.C., filed Aug. 14, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Theodore Fillette, Leslie Winner, Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, 403 N. Tryon St., Charlotte, NC 28202, (704) 376-1608; Richard Klein. [Here reported: 29,971A Complaint (16pp.).]

This case challenges the city's refusal to rezone a predominantly white neighborhood to allow construction of 49 units of public housing which would most likely be occupied by blacks. Plaintiffs are black persons who have active public housing applications and who desire to live in an integrated neighborhood. They claim that the intent and effect of defendants' denial of the requested zoning change is to perpetuate segregation.

Plaintiffs claim violations of 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, and the settlement agreement of a lawsuit in which the city agreed to remedy past discrimination by adopting a policy of scattering the sites of future public housing into nonracially impacted areas. Plaintiffs seek class certification and injunctive relief.

HUD Agrees Brown v. Harris Section 8 Eviction Procedures Also Apply to Akron Housing Authority 30,005. Fleming v. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 14, 1980). Plaintiff represented by Vince Alfera, Summit County Legal Aid Society, 34 S. High St., Akron, OH 44308, (216) 535-4191. [Here reported: 30,005A Complaint (8pp.); 30,005B Order (2pp.).]

HUD has agreed to instruct the Akron Housing Authority that it may not permit landlords to give notices of termination to tenants subject to ratification by the housing authority but must itself issue notices of termination. The landlord notice procedure allowed by 24 C.F.R. 882.215 was invalidated by the decision of Brown v. Harris [No. 26,556

Farm Labor Housing Complex Sued for Refusal to Allow Handicapped Tenant to Have Telephone

29,958. Shelton v. Milton-Freewater Orchard Homes, Inc. (D. Or., filed Aug. 11, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Spencer Neal, Richard Ginsburg, Oregon Legal Services, 107 SE 2nd, Hillsboro, OR 97123, (503) 640-4770; James Massey. [Here reported: 29,958A Complaint (12pp.); 29,958B Memo in Support of TRO & Prelim. Inj. (9pp.).]

A section 1983 complaint has been filed against an Oregon farm labor housing complex by a handicapped tenant who alleges that the management of the project will not permit her to have a telephone in her apartment. She complains that her physical condition is such that she cannot use pay phones 150 feet from the apartment and that her mental condition makes private telephone consultation with her psychiatrist a necessity. Plaintiff is married to a seasonal farm worker who resides year round at the project, which is insured and subsidized by the federal government under the 1949 Housing Act farm labor provisions.

Defendants' unwritten policy is not to allow telephones in the apartments, which are rented on a week-to-week basis. Plaintiff is seeking an injunction and $620,000 in general and punitive damages for denial of her right to a grievance hearing required by 7 C.F.R. §1944.556, violation of her rights under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and for denial of first amendment freedom of speech and association rights and fifth amendment due process rights.

Residents of Federally Assisted Housing Seek Notice and Hearing Before Eviction

30,034. Love v. HUD (W.D. Pa., Aug. 22, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Donald Driscoll, Tim O'Brien, Neighborhood Legal Services Ass'n, 429 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15219, (412) 255-6700. [Here reported: 30,034A Complaint (20pp.); 30,034B Memo in Support of Plfs' Motion for TRO & Prelim. Inj. (18pp.); 30,034C Prelim. Order (3pp.).]

Plaintiffs have filed their complaint as a class action on behalf of all Section 221(d)(3) and Section 236 project occupants in their county; they allege that the eviction

procedures allowed by 24 C.F.R. §450 violate their right to due process because tenants do not receive notice and a hearing before being evicted if the eviction is based on an alleged breach of the lease. Plaintiffs claim that they were terminated without notice and without a chance to show that they no longer had dogs which the private defendants alleged violated the lease provisions. According to section 450.4(c), the lease and state law control the number of days of advance notice; in Pennsylvania, notice can be and often is waived.

On behalf of a subclass of tenants in Section 221(d)(3) and Section 236 projects who receive Section 8 additional assistance for projects with HUD-insured or HUD-held mortgages, plaintiffs also challenge 24 C.F.R. §886.128 on equal protection and statutory grounds (42 U.S.C. §1437fdX1Xb)), since these units are existing units and HUD has not provided for administrative reviews and notices to vacate prior to termination and eviction. Plaintiffs also claim that HUD's failure to promulgate regulations which would assure that leases in these projects do not contain unreasonable provisions is contrary to 12 U.S.C. §1715z-1b.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending, as is a motion for preliminary relief against HUD. The private defendants have consented to an order enjoining them from taking any action to evict for reasons other than nonpayment of rent or failure to certify income for rent computation purposes.

Relocation Assistance Need Not Be Provided to Tenants Unless Apartment Is Razed Due to Code Enforcement

25,526. Devines v. Maier (E.D. Wis., Aug. 9, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Lawrence Albrecht, Legal Action of Wisconsin, 1006 S. 16th St., Milwaukee, WI 53204, (414) 645-9022. [Here reported: 25,526B Decision & Order (11pp.). Previously reported at 12 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 740 (Feb. 1979).]

The court ruled that relocation benefits paid to tenants living in buildings which were razed as a result of Milwaukee's program of strict code enforcement were not available to tenants who had to relocate because of code violations in buildings which were not razed. The relocation program was financed with block grant funds. Plaintiffs had argued that they were entitled to benefits under the just compensation clause of the fifth amendment, the Uniform Relocation Act (42 U.S.C. §§4601 et seq.), the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and Wisconsin statutes. In response to the just compensation claim, the court noted that owners of buildings which are razed for health or safety reasons are not entitled to compensation and that the rule should not be different for tenants. The court also decided that relocation payments were not mandatory under the Uniform Relocation Act and that plaintiffs' argument that the city's block grant application did not comply with the Housing and Community Development Act was without merit because the relocation program was not required to be broadly based. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Public Housing Authority's Lack of Grievance Procedures to Contest Move-Out Charges Is Challenged

30,073. Disney v. Knoxville's Community Development Corp. (E.D. Tenn., filed Aug. 29, 1980). Plaintiff represented by Ronald Plunkett, James Lafevor, University of Tennessee Legal Clinic, 502 S. Gay St., Knoxville, TN 37902, (615) 9745241. [Here reported: 30,073A Complaint (8pp.).]

This action challenges the local public housing authority's policy of refusing to provide a grievance procedure to former tenants who wish to dispute the amount of move-out charges. Plaintiff, a former tenant, alleges that this policy violates the Housing Act of 1937, equal protection, due process and 24 C.F.R. §§866.4 and 866.50 et seq. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus compelling HUD to require the housing authority to conform its policies to federal law.

Community Group Sues to Channel CDBG Funds to Low-Income Rather Than Middle-Income People and to Require Police and Fire Departments to Present Desegregation Plan

29,918. Lancaster Coalition for Block Grant Compliance v. Landrieu (E.D. Pa., filed July 31, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Randall Chapman, Central Pennsylvania Legal Services, 10 S. Prince St., Lancaster, PA 17603, (717) 299-0971; David Pauline. [Here reported: 29,918A Complaint (41pp.).]

Plaintiffs have filed a class action complaint alleging that HUD officials and city officials have violated the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 in their administration of Lancaster's Community Development Block Grant. Plaintiffs claim that (1) Lancaster's Housing Assistance Plan denies low-income minority households the opportunity to locate subsidized housing in nonimpacted neighborhoods, (2) funded public works projects have been targeted for moderate- to middleincome neighborhoods instead of for the city's low-income neighborhood, (3) the defendants have failed to allocate funded public works projects in neighborhoods populated by minority households, and (4) the city's fire and police departments have engaged in a pattern of racially discriminatory employment. Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the expenditure of CDBG funds for projects that violate the Act and for projects in middle-income neighborhoods unless a housing assistance plan is formulated which meets the needs of low-income people. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction preventing expenditure of funds on the police and fire departments until such time as a desegregation plan is submitted.

Developer Ordered to Contribute $40,000 Profit Toward Paving of Subdivision

26,302. Sanchez v. Waller (Tex. Dist. Ct., Cameron County, Aug. 6, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Javier Cavazos, Texas Rural Legal Aid, 1154 E. Elizabeth, Brownsville, TX 78520, (512) 546-5558. [Here reported: 26,302C Writ of Injunction (1p.); 26,302D Findings & Conclusions of Law (6pp.); 26,302E Judgment (3pp.). Previously reported at 13 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 119 (June 1979).]

A Texas court has ordered a developer to contribute his $40,000 profit toward paving, gutters, and curbs in a subdivision adjacent to Brownsville because the developer sold lots without complying with local ordinances and state law regulating the development of subdivisions. The developer was also ordered to prepare the required plats and submit them to the city's zoning board and to comply with plat filing requirements. The court noted that the developer's maps alloted rights-of-way for streets and utility purposes and that he therefore had not intended to sell raw agricultural land. The court found that the developer sold the land without any provision for water, sewage, streets or utilities and that he knew the cost of providing utilities would be prohibitive. The court certified a class of property owners in the area. (The city and county were also plaintiffs.) The developer has indicated that he will appeal.

Failure to Serve Dual Notice Bars Housing Authority from Evicting Tenants

30,069. San Francisco Housing Authority v. Cortes (Cal. Mun. Ct., San Francisco County, May 21, 1980). Defendants represented by Wallace Oman, Thomas Pulliam, San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Fdn., 2701 Folsom St., San Francisco, CA 94110, (415) 648-7580. [Here reported: 30,069A Complaint (2pp.); 30,069B Defs' Memo of Pts. & Auth. (16pp.); 30,069C Minute Order (2pp.).]

The San Francisco Public Housing Authority instituted an unlawful detainer action against the defendant tenants for their alleged falsification of family income information. Relying on Staten v. Housing Authority of Pittsburgh, 469 F. Supp. 1013 (1979), and 24 C.F.R. §§866.1 et seq., the tenants moved for summary judgment because the authority did not use the dual notice system required to evict public housing tenants. The court granted summary judgment for the ten

ants.

The dual notice system requires that tenants be served with a federally required notice of proposed termination of tenancy and be allowed to waive or exhaust rights under a grievance hearing procedure; after exhaustion or waiver, notice of termination of tenancy pursuant to state law must be served.

Deaf Public Housing Tenant Challenges Refusal to Allow Her to Keep Hearing-Ear Dog in Apartment

29,795. Lindsay v. Knoxville's Community Development Corp. (Tenn. Ch., Knox County, filed July 17,1980). Plaintiff represented by Ronald Plunkett, The University of Tennessee Legal Clinic, 502 S. Gay St., Knoxville, TN 37902, (615) 9745241. [Here reported: 29,795A Complaint (9pp.).]

A deaf tenant of public housing is challenging the housing authority's refusal to allow her to keep a hearing-ear dog in her apartment. Although the authority equipped the tenant's apartment with flashing lights in lieu of a door bell, the tenant alleges that this device is inadequate because it is often broken, it cannot warn the tenant of intruders entering through doors or windows, and it cannot warn her of her deaf and blind son's seizures. The authority has refused to install devices to alert plaintiff to illegal entries. The tenant obtained a small dog which she trained to hear for her, but she was given a notice to remove the dog until the animal was certified by a reputable and qualified trainer. The tenant lacks the funds to pay for such training.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants' actions violate the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. §§1401 et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. §749; the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§4151 et seq.; equal protection; and due process. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages of $10,000, plus costs and attorneys' fees.

FmHA Grants Mortgagor Retroactive Interest Credits but Bars Moratorium on Mortgage Payments

29,646. In re Luna (Farmers Home Admin., June 27, 1980). Appellant represented by Garry Geffert, Steven Herendeen (paralegal), Florida Rural Legal Services, 103 S. 9th Ave., Wauchula, FL 33873, (813) 773-3291; George Carr. [Here reported: 29,646A Letter of Appeal (3pp.); 29,646B Decision (2pp.).]

The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) erroneously failed to determine the debtor's entitlement to interest credits, which led to the institution of foreclosure proceedings in federal court. The appeals hearing officer granted the debtor retroactive interest credit although he denied her request for a moratorium on her mortgage payments. The debtor expects that this decision will allow her house to be removed from foreclosure.

Austin, Texas, Community Groups Challenge CDBG Application'

30,003. In re City of Austin's Sixth Year CDBG Application (HUD, filed Aug. 20, 1980). Complainants represented by Fred Fuchs, James Piper, Legal Aid Society of Central Texas, 8th on Brazos, Austin, TX 78701, (512) 476-7244. [Here reported: 30,003A Admin. Complaint (42pp.).]

ACORN (Association of Communities Organized for Reform Now), a black citizens' group, a neighborhood organization, and a private plaintiff have filed an ad

NOVEMBER 1980

ministrative complaint with HUD which alleges that the city of Austin, Texas has failed to comply with requirements of the Community Development Block Grant Program. Complainants contend that (1) the city has failed to provide for citizen participation, (2) a project to revise the city's zoning ordinance was funded in violation of HUD regulations, (3) a proposed bank rehabilitation loan project failed to meet the program benefit test set forth in HUD regulations, (4) the housing assistance program violated HUD regulations, (5) the contractor for the Standard Housing Rehabilitation Program performed poor quality rehabilitation work, (6) the city has failed to meet an acceptable standard in its hiring of minority contractors, (7) the city has failed to adopt an antidisplacement strategy, and (8) the city violated HUD regulations by allocating sixth-year funds prior to the completion of the citizen participation process. Complainants seek a full review by HUD of the city's sixth-year application, a variety of measures to increase citizen participation, and approval of the application to be conditioned on compliance.

IMMIGRATION

Class Action Seeks 60-Day Time Limit for Review of Petitions Seeking Immediate Relative Classification

30,060. Huerta v. Crosland (S.D. Fla., filed 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Gregory Schell, Florida Rural Legal Services, P.O. Box 1109, Immokalee, FL 33934, (813) 657-3681. David Rubman, Cynthia Metzler, Carlos Holguin. [Here reported: 30,060A Complaint (12pp.); 30,060B Memo in Support of Class Certification (16pp.).]

This class action challenges the Immigration and Naturalization Service's delays in adjudicating and processing immediate relative petitions. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants have delayed adjudication of their petitions for periods averaging nine months, even though the Immigration and Nationality Act limits the scope of the review of these petitions to the existence and validity of the family relationship claimed. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of these delays, they are being denied due process. They seek an order directing that all relative petitions be adjudicated within 60 days from the date of filing.

Cuban Refugees Seek Release from Federal Penitentiary

30,037. Soroa-Gonzales v. Civiletti (N.D. Ga., filed Aug. 15, 1980). Petitioners represented by Barbara Twine, Deborah Ebel, Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 1131 Capitol Ave., SW, Atlanta, GA 30315, (404) 524-2681. [Here reported: 30,037A Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (4pp.); 30,037B Brief in Support of Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus (23pp.).]

Three Cuban refugees are being held in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary because they admitted to immigration

agents that they had been in prison in Cuba just before they entered the United States as part of the 114,000 Cubans who entered in May and June 1980. All three have had hearings in which it was determined that they may not be excluded from the United States because of their Cuban convictions. Despite those determinations, all three plaintiffs continue to be held without bond in prison. They have filed this habeas corpus petition seeking release. Their memorandum in support of the petition argues that the district court has jurisdiction to grant the petition and that the decision to continue them in custody has no rational basis.

Damages Sought Against INS Border Patrol Agents for Death and Injuries Allegedly Caused by High Speed Chase

30,011. Rodriguez v. Handy (S.D. Tex., filed July 14, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Linda Yanez, Texas Rural Legal Aid, 1154 E. Elizabeth, Brownsville, TX 78520, (512) 5465558; Roger Reed. [Here reported: 30,011A Amended Complaint (8pp.).]

This is an action against the INS and two border patrol agents for injuries and a death which occurred in connection with a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges that the decedent and other plaintiffs, all Mexican citizens, were passengers in a pick-up truck driven by an unknown person. The complaint alleges further that the truck was being pursued in Texas for an alleged traffic offense when the local sheriff requested the assistance of border patrol agents. Plaintiffs assert that the agents fired unnecessarily at the truck, causing it to go out of control and overturn, killing one passenger and injuring others.

Suit is brought under section 1983 for alleged violations of the fifth, fourteenth and eighth amendments. Plaintiffs seek actual and exemplary damages and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs also allege that the INS failed to select and train adequately its border patrol agents.

Deportation of 58-Year-Old Alien Suspended Because of Extreme Hardship

29,694. In re Huggins (U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bd. of Immigration App., June 26, 1980). Appellant-Respondent represented by Eugene Wong, Brian Masony, Legal Services of the Virgin Islands, No. 17 Estate Orange Grove, Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00820, (809) 773-2626. [Here reported: 29,694A Brief for Appellant (5pp.); 29,694B Order (3pp.).]

The Board of Immigration Appeals has suspended the deportation of a 58-year-old alien based on a claim of extreme hardship. The Board found extreme hardship because of respondent's 18-year residence in the United States, her age, her limited financial means, her lack of ties to her homeland (St. Kitts, United Kingdom), and her uncertain employment prospects there. The Board also noted that respondent had been self-supporting and hard working

during the entire period of her residence in the Virgin Islands. (Respondent had conceded that she was deportable because she had remained in the United States beyond the time authorized.)

JUVENILES

Plaintiffs Seek Summary Judgment on Claims of Denial of Access to the Courts in Action on Behalf of Incarcerated Children

23,111. D. v. Rader (W.D. Okla., filed Aug. 1980). Plaintiffs represented by Steven Novick, Legal Aid of Western Oklahoma, 228 Robert S. Kerr Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73102, (405) 272-9461; David Howard, Harry Swanger, Peggy Wiesenberg, Matthew Myers. [Here reported: 23,111W Memo in Support of Plfs' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment & Protective Order (41pp.). Previously reported at 12 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 357 (Oct. 1978).]

In this action on behalf of institutionalized children in Oklahoma, plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment on their claim that defendants have interfered with the children's access to counsel and the courts. Plaintiffs also seek a protective order prohibiting the defendants from limiting class counsel's communication with class members. In support of their motion, plaintiffs argue that (1) access to the courts for institutionalized persons is guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, (2) defendants' practices interfere with meaningful court access and violate the first and fourteenth amendments, and (3) the defendants' policies restricting access to the institutionalized class members unreasonably interferes with plaintiffs' counsels' obligation to represent fairly and adequately the interest of the class.

Plaintiffs allege numerous incidents of censorship of legal mail, staff intimidation of children for attempting to contact their attorneys, denial and destruction of outgoing legal mail, and denial of telephone contact with lawyers. In addition, plaintiffs attack the defendants' failure to develop a legal assistance plan for Oklahoma's incarcerated children. Arguing that the state has an affirmative constitutional obligation to ensure court access for all inmates and that law libraries are an inadequate alternative for juveniles, plaintiffs seek a ruling that will require state-supplied legal counsel for indigent juvenile inmates.

Court Orders State Agencies to Provide Over $39,000 to Child Placement Agency for Services to Be Provided to Juvenile

30,052. In re T. (Baltimore, Md. Cir. Ct., May 9, 1980). Respondent represented by Gordon Berman, William Grimm, Belinda Bean, Emerson Dorsey, Shelley Levin, Legal Aid Bureau, 341 N. Calvert St., Baltimore, MD 21202, (301) 539-5340. [Here reported: 30,052A Order (5pp.).]

A Maryland juvenile court has ordered the department of social services, the social service administration and the

NOVEMBER 1980

department of budget and fiscal planning to provide over $39,000 to a Baltimore child placement agency for the provision of services to a 17-year-old juvenile committed to the department of social services. The department had sought to rescind the commitment, alleging that it had no services or facilities to offer the youth, whose acts of violence had resulted in termination of his treatment at residential facilities.

The program plan submitted by the child placement agency recommended that the youth be placed in a semiindependent living situation in the community, augmented by a therapeutic foster family and instruction in self-care, selfcontrol, citizenship and family socialization. In addition, the plan recommended an educational plan geared to upgrade the youth's educational deficits and individual psychotherapy.

Children Entitled to Due Process Protections in Nondelinquency Juvenile Court Proceedings

28,013. M. v. Rumbaugh (Tenn. Ch., Davidson County, Aug. 12, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by David Kozlowski, Andrew Shookhoff, Legal Aid Society, Vanderbilt Law School, Nashville, TN 37240, (615) 322-6630; Lyn Devine, Kathy Principe. [Here reported: 28,013B Plfs' Trial Brief (6pp.); 28,013C Defs' Trial Brief (4pp.); 28,013D Plfs' Post-Trial Brief (26pp.); 28,013E Decision (10pp.); 28,013F Order (2pp.). Previously reported at 13 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 706 (Jan. 1980).]

A Tennessee court has held that dependent and neglected children and status offenders may not be committed to a residential educational facility without being afforded adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a right to be represented by counsel. The court declared that due process rights do not lessen because the charge in the juvenile proceeding is characterized as dependent rather than delinquent. The state had argued that full due process was not required unless commitment was based on commission of a crime. In rejecting the state's position, the court held that placement at Tennessee Preparatory School (a facility for dependent and neglected children operated by the Department of Education) constituted a loss of significant and substantial rights of freedom.

The court also held that children at the facility had a right to reasonable access to the courts to challenge their confinement. While not specifically setting forth the state's obligation to ensure such access to the court, the court found that there was no effective legal assistance program at TPS although the state sponsors such programs at other juvenile facilities.

LANDLORD/TENANT

Preliminary Injunction Issued in Suit Alleging Poor Conditions in Mobile Home Park

29,900. Swanson v. Slattery (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Cayuga County, July 24, 1980). Plaintiffs represented by John Caster, Linda