Sheena Yarbrough v. Decatur Housing Authority, 905 F.3d 1222

Sheena Yarbrough participated in the Section 8 voucher program and signed HUD "Obligations of the Participating Family" prohibiting drug-related criminal activity.
Decatur Housing Authority learned of Yarbrough's arrest and later two grand‑jury indictments for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance; Yarbrough denied wrongdoing and requested hearings.
A hearing officer relied on the arrest and indictments and found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Yarbrough engaged in drug‑related criminal activity, recommending termination of her voucher; the Authority delayed, then resumed and terminated assistance.
Yarbrough sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the termination violated HUD regulations and the Fourteenth Amendment because it rested solely on indictments/hearsay and was legally insufficient.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Authority, holding indictments/arrest established misconduct by a preponderance; the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an indictment/arrest suffices as evidence that a Section 8 participant "engaged in drug‑related criminal activity" under the regulation's preponderance standard	Yarbrough: an indictment/arrest only establishes probable cause and is legally insufficient to prove misconduct by a preponderance	Authority: a facially valid indictment conclusively establishes probable cause and, when considered at hearing (with cross‑examination), can satisfy the preponderance standard	Held: Indictment/arrest evidence alone is legally insufficient to meet the preponderance standard; summary judgment for Authority vacated
Whether the court must resolve alternative due‑process/hearsay challenge	Yarbrough: reliance on hearsay and lack of reliable evidence violated due process	Authority: reliance on indictments comported with due process	Held: Court did not reach due‑process/hearsay claim because the insufficiency ruling on the preponderance issue disposed of the appeal

Basco v. Machin, 514 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2008) (interpreting HUD regulation to require public housing authorities to present sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case under the preponderance standard)
Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320 (2014) (a facially valid indictment conclusively determines existence of probable cause)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (probable cause standard and nature of probable‑cause determinations)
Galvez v. Bruce, 552 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Harris v. James, 127 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 1997) (regulation alone does not create a § 1983‑enforceable right unless it fleshes out a statutory right)
Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (to sue under § 1983 plaintiff must assert violation of a federal right)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (statutory text must unambiguously create rights enforceable under § 1983)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (regulations cannot create private rights enforceable under § 1983 beyond what Congress provided)
Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979) (Due Process Clause does not guarantee error‑free administrative determinations)