Halim v. Donovan
951 F. Supp. 2d 201
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Ahmad Halim and his son Sharif Abdelhalim (pro se) sued HUD and several City of Henderson officials alleging nationality- and religion-based discrimination related to multiple HUD property contracts and foreclosure-sale transactions.
- The District Court previously dismissed without prejudice the claims against the City Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction; only Halim’s claims against HUD remained.
- Halim moved to reconsider the personal-jurisdiction dismissal or, alternatively, to transfer the dismissed claims to a North Carolina court; the Court treated this as a Rule 59(e) motion and denied it.
- HUD moved to dismiss Halim’s Second Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on sovereign-immunity and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
- The complaint alleged HUD terminated HAP contracts and withheld escrow on multifamily properties (Schenectady NY, Meridian MS, Montgomery AL, Flushing OH) due to Halim’s Egyptian origin and Muslim faith; HUD administered the contracts directly.
- The Court dismissed the remaining claims: Title VI and § 1983 do not waive sovereign immunity for federal agencies; a Bivens claim against Secretary Donovan failed for lack of personal involvement and pleading; Tucker Act/Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction foreclosed monetary contract claims here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court should reconsider dismissal of City Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer those claims to NC | Halim argued diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) or requested transfer to North Carolina | Court: diversity is subject-matter only; personal jurisdiction is distinct; no new facts or law justified reconsideration; sua sponte transfer discretionary | Denied—Reconsideration denied; transfer not ordered; dismissal without prejudice stands |
| Whether Title VI provides waiver of sovereign immunity for HUD actions | Halim invoked Title VI for discrimination claims against HUD | HUD: Title VI applies to recipients of federal funds, not to federal agencies directly administering programs | Dismissed—Title VI does not waive sovereign immunity for HUD-administered programs |
| Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or analogous relief applies to HUD or federal officials | Halim cited § 1983 as jurisdictional basis | HUD: § 1983 applies only to state actors; federal officials are not liable under § 1983; any claim against federal official would be Bivens | Dismissed—§ 1983 inapplicable; any Bivens claim against Secretary Donovan fails for lack of personal involvement and pleading defects |
| Whether federal courts (this court) have jurisdiction over contract/monetary relief vs. Court of Federal Claims | Halim sought reinstatement of HAP, escrow return, and $1,000,000 in damages | HUD: monetary and contract-based claims against the United States fall under the Tucker Act and are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—Tucker Act/Federal Claims Court is the proper forum for those remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standards for Rule 59(e) relief)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (sovereign immunity requires express waiver)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1992) (waivers of sovereign immunity are not implied)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (official-capacity suit is an action against the government)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (implied damages remedy against federal officers in limited circumstances)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (Bivens claims require plausible allegations of each official’s personal conduct)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994) (limits on suits for constitutional torts against the United States)
- Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1993) (description of Section 8/HAP program structure)
- Settles v. United States Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (§ 1983 does not apply to federal actors)
- James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claims tied to money judgment fall within Tucker Act jurisdiction)