Buckholz v. Kelso Housing Authority
3:25-cv-05170
W.D. Wash.Apr 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Jacqueline Buckholz, lives in Kelso, Washington, receiving a housing voucher due to significant mental disabilities and limited income.
- Defendant, Kelso Housing Authority (KHA), terminated Buckholz’s voucher for noncompliance with Housing Quality Standards inspections, notifying her via letter.
- The letter required an appeal within 10 business days; Buckholz, due to her mental disabilities, did not understand the process and missed the deadline, despite seeking clarification from KHA multiple times.
- Buckholz submitted a late appeal and requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability; KHA refused, stating the request was untimely and no hearing would be granted.
- Without the voucher, Buckholz faces eviction and possible homelessness, as alternative assistance was temporary only. She filed suit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause.
- Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to reinstate her voucher pending litigation; the court granted the motion after finding all required factors met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable Accommodation | Buckholz requested accommodation for her mental disabilities after late appeal | KHA says she had prior opportunities and request was untimely | Accommodation request was reasonable; KHA failed duties |
| Due Process | Termination failed to provide sufficient notice and process, especially given disability | KHA argues procedures (notice, opportunity to appeal) were followed | Likelihood of due process violation, favor Plaintiff |
| Irreparable Harm | Loss of voucher leads to eviction and irreparable harm | KHA did not demonstrate specific harm or funding issue | Plaintiff faces likely irreparable harm |
| Public Interest | FHA and due process enforcement furthers public interest | KHA argues minimal hardship, focuses on administrative burden | Public interest supports injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for issuing preliminary injunctions)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (injunctive relief is extraordinary and to be granted sparingly)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (framework for evaluating due process sufficiency)
- Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 806 F.3d 1178 (housing vouchers as property interest under Due Process Clause)
- Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (elements and standard for reasonable accommodation under the FHA)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (likelihood of success is the most important preliminary injunction factor)