Rios v. Town of Huntington Housing Authority
853 F. Supp. 2d 330
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Rios participates in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by Huntington Housing Authority (PHA).
- Plaintiff was involved in a August 2011 altercation; she was arrested for felony assault and incarcerated briefly.
- Notice dated October 5, 2011 purportedly terminated her Section 8 benefits due to the arrest.
- A December 9, 2011 informal hearing occurred; the hearing officer recommended continuation of benefits.
- February 23, 2012 the PHA announced it would terminate benefits, overruling the HO’s decision.
- March 30, 2012 Rios filed suit; court granted a TRO and later addressed jurisdiction and merits in this memorandum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this case should be pursued in Article 78 rather than federal court | Rios seeks federal due process relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. | Remedies lie in Article 78; NY courts provide post-deprivation review. | Case should proceed as Article 78; federal injunction denied. |
| Whether PHA’s reversal of the HO decision violated due process | PHA acted contrary to HUD regulations and failed to justify reversal. | PHA lawfully overturned the HO decision under applicable regulations. | No due process violation found; pre-deprivation process satisfied. |
| Whether plaintiff has a likelihood of success on due process claims | HO misapplied regulations; process inadequate. | Proper procedures satisfied; remedy available in state court. | No likelihood of success on due process claims. |
| Whether plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim based on § 1437d(k) has merit | Violation of federal housing procedures supports § 1983 claim. | Plaintiff failed to allege violation of procedural requirements. | No merit to § 1437d(k) claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (due process pre-termination protections and hearing rights)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (random, unauthorized conduct and post-deprivation remedies)
- HANAC v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877 (2d Cir. 1996) (distinguishes random vs. established procedures for due process)
- Rivera-Powell v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) (pre/post-deprivation hearing framework and due process implications)
- Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (what process is due and availability of post-deprivation remedies)
- McDarby v. Dinkins, 907 F.2d 1334 (2d Cir. 1990) (minimal due process requirements; state remedies preferred for procedural challenges)
- Goldberg v. Kelly (reiterated), 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (pre-termination process dictates housing assistance proceedings)
- Rivera-Powell v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) (distinction between random acts and established procedures in due process)
- Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (adequacy of state remedies for due process review)