BAILEY v. HALEY, 2:11-cv-01153

Bailey sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process violations in terminating her Section 8 benefits by the MCHA and its officials.
Termination followed an April 2010 altercation with Jessica Ford; notice dated July 21, 2010 informed Bailey of termination for violent criminal behavior.
An August 31, 2010 hearing contested the termination; Bailey and a witness testified to violence, Bailey claiming self-defense; police testimony supported Bailey as aggressor.
Hearing officer found Bailey engaged in violent criminal conduct and terminated benefits; Bailey received an October 25, 2010 notice labeled final and did not receive explicit appeal rights in that letter.
Bailey pleaded guilty in March 2011 to disorderly conduct; other charges related to the incident were dropped; Bailey amended her complaint to add six § 1983 due process claims.
The court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, applying Iqbal/Twombly standards and related Third Circuit two-step analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the notice of termination sufficient for due process?	Bailey argues notice was insufficient to permit rebuttal.	Haley/Navon/Johnson/MCHA contend notice was sufficient and more detailed than a similar case.	Notice sufficient; Bailey had adequate opportunity to prepare.
Did reliance on uncorroborated hearsay and lack of confrontation violate due process?	Bailey claims hearsay and lack of confrontational rights violated due process.	Hearsay corroborated by competent evidence; confrontation rights adequately addressed at hearing.	No due process violation; hearsay corroborated, and rights to confrontation were satisfied.
Was evidence outside the record properly considered?	Bailey asserts consideration of outside-record evidence violated due process.	Any outside-record evidence considered was immaterial to the outcome.	Properly considered; immaterial to the decision.
Was the burden of proof properly placed on the MCHA?	Bailey contends improper burden shifting violated due process.	Hearing officer placed burden on MCHA to prove violation by preponderance of the evidence.	Burden properly placed on MCHA.
Was Bailey misled about her right to appeal?	Bailey alleges misleading notice about appeal rights.	Appeal rights exist by statute/published rules; oral notice given at hearing.	No due process violation; right to appeal properly published and verbally explained.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (Supreme Court, 2009) (plausibility standard; threadbare recitals not enough)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; not mere labels)
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (two-step analysis for 12(b)(6) after Iqbal)
Ervin v. Hous. Auth. of Birmingham Dist., 281 Fed. Appx. 938 (11th Cir. 2008) (sufficient statement of reasons for termination to allow rebuttal)
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (quasi-judicial immunity and proper hearing conduct)
Mogil v. Commonwealth of Pa. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 413 A.2d 480 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980) (no federal mandate to inform of appeal where right to appeal is published)