McCall v. MONTGOMERY HOUSING AUTHORITY
809 F. Supp. 2d 1314
M.D. Ala.2011Background
- McCall, a Section 8 recipient, sues MHA, Hester, Harris, and Ellis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process and HUD-related violations, plus Alabama-law claims.
- MHA administers Section 8; Hester is Executive Director; Harris is Section 8 Director; Ellis is MHA personnel director and occasional hearing officer.
- MHA contracted with local sheriff's office to run criminal background checks; Harris reviews results and terminates benefits if violations are found.
- McCall allegedly received a deficient termination notice with no factual basis and no adequate pre‑termination hearing; she did not attend the hearing due to illness.
- McCall sought an informal hearing and later retained counsel; hearings proceeded without appearance by McCall or her counsel; Ellis drafted a post-hearing memorandum and actions terminated benefits.
- McCall amended complaint seeking damages and declaratory relief; court severed her claims from other plaintiffs and preliminarily enjoined termination of benefits during proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ellis enjoys quasi-judicial immunity from McCall's claims. | McCall argues Ellis acted as a hearing officer and should not be immune. | Ellis seeks absolute quasi-judicial immunity for her hearing officer duties. | Ellis granted quasi-judicial immunity; claims against Ellis are dismissed. |
| Whether MHA, Hester, and Harris violated § 1983 by due process and HUD-related rights. | McCall contends notice defects, biased/hearing officer, lack of evidence, and defective written decision violated due process and housing laws. | Defendants contend proper notice, hearing, and decisions complied with law; no due process violation. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment; § 1983 claims survive for trial. |
| Whether the notice of termination satisfied due process and HUD requirements. | Notice lacked description of factual basis and grounds; violated Goldberg and HUD regulations. | Notice conformed to regulation language and was sufficient. | Notice deficiency creates triable issues; summary judgment denied on this issue. |
| Whether the written decision after the hearing provided adequate reasons and evidentiary basis. | Written decision lacked findings and rationale; violated due process. | Hearing decision complied with regulation to briefly state reasons. | Written decision deemed deficient; triable issues remain; summary judgment denied. |
| Whether McCall's Alabama-law claims against Hester, Harris, and MHA fail or survive. | Breach of contract, negligence in training/supervision, and related claims against MHA and officers. | Some claims merit dismissal; others hinge on contract and supervision theory. | Negligence in employing a competent hearing officer dismissed; training/supervision claims triable; breach of contract against Hester/Harris dismissed; breach of contract against MHA denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process for public assistance benefits; notice and hearing requirements)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom, not respondeat superior)
- Dixon v. Clem, 492 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2007) (hearing officers and quasi-judicial immunity extend to administrative hearings)
- Smith v. Shook, 237 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) (hearing should be treated analogously to judicial proceedings for immunity)
- Billington v. Underwood, 613 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1980) (notice must describe factual basis, not just regulate language)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (binding binding precedent in Eleventh Circuit)