931 F.3d 1322
11th Cir.2019Background
- Sheena Yarbrough was a Section 8 voucher recipient; after a 2012 arrest and later indictments for drug offenses, Decatur Housing Authority (the Authority) moved to terminate her benefits.
- Yarbrough received informal hearings; a hearing officer rejected three of four charges but found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her indictments and arrest proved drug-related activity and affirmed termination.
- Yarbrough sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the Authority violated HUD regulations (24 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(6)) requiring factual determinations to be based on a preponderance of the evidence and violated due process by relying on unreliable hearsay.
- A panel of this Court (relying on Basco v. Machin) reversed the district court, but the Court granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion to reconsider Basco’s holding.
- The en banc Court considered whether the HUD regulation can, together with the Housing Act, create a private right enforceable under § 1983 to a termination decision made by a preponderance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HUD regulation § 982.555(e)(6) and 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(k)(6) create a privately enforceable right under § 1983 to a termination decision based on a preponderance of the evidence | Yarbrough: The regulation merely fleshes out § 1437d(k)(6)’s statutory right to a "written decision," so § 1983 enforcement is available | Authority: The statute requires only a written decision (form), not a substantive burden of proof; the regulation imposes a distinct substantive obligation that cannot create § 1983 rights | Court: Overrules Basco to the extent it held the Housing Act or HUD regulation creates a § 1983 right to a preponderance standard; the regulation is unmoored from the statute and cannot support a § 1983 claim |
| Whether the Authority violated procedural due process by relying on unreliable hearsay at the hearing | Yarbrough: Crediting indictments and hearsay denied due process | Authority: Hearing evidence (indictments) was legally sufficient; no due process violation | Court: Declined to decide en banc; left due process/h hearsay issues for the panel to address on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Basco v. Machin, 514 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir.) (previously held HUD regulation supported § 1983 claim)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (agencies cannot create private rights enforceable under § 1983)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (congressional intent is required to create federal rights enforceable under § 1983)
- Harris v. James, 127 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 1997) (regulation may support § 1983 only if it defines content of a statutory right)
- Wright v. City of Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418 (1987) (HUD regulation that interprets statutory term can create enforceable rights)