Denial of housing voucher satisfied due process

Where a housing voucher applicant alleged the housing authority violated due process in denying her application, but its letter said the denial was based on her criminal history and it promptly provided the records upon which it relied, the due process claim was dismissed.

Background

LaFonda Page alleges that Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, or RRHA, violated her rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Housing Act, or USHA and related federal regulations when it denied her application for a housing voucher because of an “‘unacceptable police report.” Defendant argues that the complaint fails to state a claim and should be dismissed.

Due process

Defendant argues that the court should dismiss Count One because plaintiff does not have a property right in a voucher for which due process is required or, in the alternative, because RRHA’s procedures satisfied due process.

Applicants have a property interest in potential benefits if the government has little discretion in awarding those benefits once an individual applies. Thus, the key question here is what level of discretion RRHA had in denying plaintiff’s voucher. The court finds that RRHA has little discretion in determining whether an applicant should receive a voucher after their eligibility is determined so that applicants had a property interest in potential benefits, and due process was required.

Plaintiff argues that RRHA did not provide adequate notice of its decision to deny her a voucher because its denial letter only summarily mentioned a problem with her criminal record and did not explain further. While RRHA’s notice was not perfect, it meets the requirements of due process. RRHA includes the basis for its decision: plaintiff had an unacceptable criminal history. While the letter did not include the criminal history records that RRHA relied on in making its decision, RRHA “promptly” sent plaintiff those records so that she could examine them. And while the letter does not specify which of plaintiff’s three misdemeanor convictions triggered her denial, plaintiff had all the necessary tools at her disposal to further investigate and dispute RRHA’s decision.

Section 1983

The complaint alleges that RRHA violated statutory provisions of the USHA (Count Two) and HUD regulations (Count Three) when it denied Page’s voucher application. Plaintiff does not cite any provision of the USHA or HUD regulations allowing her to bring a cause of action in federal court. Instead, she claims that she may sue RRHA for its alleged violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But without any evidence that Congress intended these sections of the USHA to create a benefit enforceable by plaintiff, she has no cause of action under § 1983. Thus, the court will dismiss Count Two for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff similarly argues in Count Three that two HUD regulations create a federal right enforceable under § 1983. Federal courts of appeals have similarly found nothing in the statute creating federal rights. Because the authorizing statute shows no Congressional intent to create a federal right, the HUD regulations also cannot create any enforceable right. The court will dismiss Count Three for failure to state a claim.

Declaratory judgment

Lastly, plaintiff asks the court for a declaratory judgment. But plaintiff’s claims and rights asserted here have certainly matured. Her application for a voucher was already denied. Thus, to the extent that plaintiff also requests declaratory relief, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Page v. Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Case No. 3:21-cv-462, Nov. 10, 2021. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 021-3-518. 15 pp.