Anderson v. Donovan, 2:06-cv-03298

HANO moved for summary judgment to dismiss due process claims against it.
Court denied HANO's motion; ruling states denial on record for further discovery issues.
Plaintiffs claim a cognizable property interest in pre-Katrina housing benefits, including utilities, continues post-displacement.
Post-Katrina transition from public housing to voucher program allegedly reduced benefits and utility access.
Plaintiffs allege HANO's administration of voucher program and notice practices deprived them of due process rights.
Material facts exist regarding HANO's utility provisions, lease terms, inspections, and notice timing that affect the due process analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have a cognizable property interest in post-Katrina housing benefits	Anderson argues there is a protected entitlement to continued benefits	HANO asserts no cognizable entitlement to free utilities or pre-Katrina benefits	Yes, cognizable property interest recognized; summary judgment improper
Whether HANO’s actions amounted to state action depriving a property interest	Plaintiffs contend HANO's transition and mismanagement were state actions	Displacement due to Katrina and private negotiations determine outcome	Disputed material facts; potential state-action deprivation remains unresolved
Whether notice about changes in benefits was reasonably calculated to inform objecting	Notice inadequately discussed utility changes; not reasonably calculated	Post-Katrina notices satisfied due process requirements	Triable issue of fact; not entitled to summary judgment on notice issue
Whether summary judgment is appropriate where material facts are in dispute	Disputes exist about HANO's conduct and regulatory compliance	Arguments rely on pre-disaster framework; post-disaster waiver claimed	No; genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment

Ridgely v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 512 F.3d 727 (5th Cir. 2008) (establishes cognizable property interests in government benefits)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires substantive protection when benefits are withdrawn)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (entitlement requires more than unilateral expectation to receive benefit)
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1974) (state action required for due process claim; private action not enough)
Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform of opportunity to object)
Szabo v. Errisson, 68 F.3d 940 (5th Cir. 1995) (notice and procedural due process considerations in post-disaster contexts)