A federal judge has dismissed the case involving five Southtown Court residents who are against the redevelopment of the housing project on the city's Southside.

Court records show U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon ordered on Jan. 31 that the case be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the case could come back to court if new evidence is presented.

Southtown Court, commonly referred to as Southtown, residents Irene Johnson, Raymond Fuller, Catherine Headen, Linda Green and Rose Crowder were named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They were suing the Housing Authority Birmingham District, the City of Birmingham and Southside Redevelopment Group-- a group formed of contractors who are working on the redevelopment plan.

Southtown is a 455-unit housing project that houses approximately 1,000 people, located on 26 acres off University Boulevard. The property has an estimated value of $26 million.

HABD commissioners voted last year to make Bayer Properties, Brasfield & Gorrie, the Benoit Group, A.G. Gaston Construction, SPM Property Management, Corporate Realty, and BREC Development partners on developing the community, and decided to refer to the group as the Southside Development Company.

The company pitched a mixed-use and mixed-income development, meaning the housing would be a combination of subsidized public housing units and units leased at market rate. Initial ideas in the redevelopment plan included a senior center, office and medical space, a green space, and retail stores.

Current Southtown residents, however, are concerned they will be left without a home. Their attorneys Richard Rice and April Collins filed the case claiming HABD was discriminating against Southtown residents and violating the Fair Housing Act.

Kallon's order states some of the plaintiffs' claims about the redevelopment are not yet ready to be reviewed. He also wrote that their claim of the defendants "intimidating, threatening, interfering or otherwise retaliating" against the Southtown plaintiffs is not backed up. He wrote the claim is being dismissed because "their allegations are not sufficient to show a causal connection between any protected activity and the retaliatory acts or to show conduct that rises to the level of [retaliation]."