Daniels v. Housing Authority, 940 F. Supp. 2d 248

Background

Daniels, a Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) participant, sues Prince George’s County Housing Authority and its Executive Director under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for due process and housing subsidy miscalculations.
Plaintiff alleged six counts: procedural due process (failure to provide informal hearing) and sub-s Counts IV–VI (subsidy calculation under §1437f(y)); Counts II and I relate to hearings/underpayments.
A prior partial summary judgment found Defendants liable on Count I for failure to provide an informal hearing; Counts II, III were resolved or dismissed; trial on damages proceeded March 4–7, 2013.
The Administrative Plan and HUD regulations govern subsidy calculation, verification, HQS inspections, and household changes; the court must assess deference to agency actions.
The court held trial on liability and damages for Counts I, IV–VI; ultimately judgment for Defendants on Counts IV–V, Plaintiff on Count VI with $24 in damages and $1 nominal on Count I; damages period analyzed November 2011–April 2012 where miscalculation occurred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Daniels has a §1983 right to a properly calculated subsidy under §1437f(y)	Daniels has enforceable rights in Homeownership Option under §1437f(y).	Rights exist but require proper statutory interpretation and deference to agency calculations.	Counts IV–VI claims properly actionable; right enforceable under §1983.
Whether use of Akers’s 2009 tax return to set 2010 income was proper	Using 2009 return deviated from current circumstances and harmed Daniels.	Tax return was most reliable verifier per Plan; documents supported by verification hierarchy.	Use of 2009 tax return not inconsistent with Plan or HUD regulations; deference due.
Whether excluding Akers from Daniels’s household in Dec 2010 is proper	Defendants should have excluded Akers earlier based on affidavits.	Affidavits insufficient; legal proof required; documentation favored change in 2011.	Exclusion effective January 2011 not inconsistent with Plan; deference applied.
Whether Defendants properly accounted for Daniels’s medical expenses (Count VI)	Defendants undervalued medical expenses and failed to account for future costs.	Defendants used historic data and known future costs; verification discretionary and reasonable.	Defendants liable for $75 in uncredited medical expenses (Nov 2011–Apr 2012) and $4 monthly; total $24.
Whether Daniels is entitled emotional distress damages for due process violation	Procedural denial caused emotional distress.	Emotional distress not proven causally tied to the deprivation; damages limited.	Nominal $1.00 damages for procedural due process violation.

Key Cases Cited

Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (1987) (established enforceable right to a proportional utility allowance under §8)
Johnson v. Hous. Auth. of Jefferson Parish, 442 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirmed §1983 enforcement to challenge subsidy calculations; utility allowance context)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (FERPA rights not enforceable under §1983; limits on rights from spending statutes)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981) (found that some regulation-created rights may be enforceable; focus on statutory text)
Clark v. Alexander, 85 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 1996) (two-step deference to agency interpretations of federal housing provisions)
Ritter v. Cecil Cnty. Office of Hous. & Comm. Dev., 33 F.3d 323 (4th Cir. 1994) (chevron-based deferential review of agency interpretations)
Smith v. Kirk, 821 F.2d 980 (4th Cir. 1987) (limits on creating rights via administrative regulations for §1983)