HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF AUGUSTA v. GOULD.
S18G0524
Supreme Court of Georgia
March 13, 2019
305 Ga. 545
BLACKWELL, Justice.
FINAL COPY
According to our precedents, the superior courts have jurisdiction to review by writ of certiorari under
Under Section 8, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development manages a program to provide housing assistance to qualified low-income families. The Department contracts with state and local public housing agencies to administer the program in the areas that they serve, and the Department makes federal funding available to participating agencies, which may use the funding to provide housing assistance in the form of vouchers. The Housing Act directs the Department to promulgate regulations to govern the administration of the program, and the Department has done so. Among other things, these regulations require a participating public housing agency to adopt and adhere to a written administrative plan that establishes policies for its administration of the program. See
In Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (90 SCt 1011, 25 LE2d 287) (1970), the United States Supreme Court held that, when a state or local government determines to discontinue the provision of welfare benefits to an individual recipient, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government to give notice and afford the recipient a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the benefits are discontinued. 397 U. S. at 261 (I). In particular, the government must give the recipient “timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a proposed termination,” id. at 267-268 (II); it must allow an
Consistent with Goldberg, the Housing Act directs the Department to issue regulations to require public housing agencies participating in the Section 8 housing assistance program to
establish and implement an administrative grievance procedure under which tenants will—
be advised of the specific grounds of any proposed adverse public housing agency action; - have an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial party upon timely request . . . ;
- have an opportunity to examine any documents or records or regulations related to the proposed action;
- be entitled to be represented by another person of their choice at any hearing;
- be entitled to ask questions of witnesses and have others make statements on their behalf; and
- be entitled to receive a written decision by the public housing agency on the proposed action.
The Housing Authority of the City of Augusta administers the Section 8 housing assistance program in Augusta-Richmond County, and it issued a Section 8 voucher to Carrie Gould, which Gould used to rent a home. The opinion of the Court of Appeals explains what happened next, at least according to the pleadings and limited record in this case:
After an annual inspection, the housing authority determined that Gould‘s residence did not meet the housing quality standards required under federal regulations, and it gave notice to Gould that the vouchers to her landlord would be terminated. Gould then sought approval from the housing authority to move to a new
residence. Pursuant to the housing authority‘s administrative plan, before Gould could be issued new vouchers for a new residence, the housing authority required the submission of a “zero balance letter” from Gould‘s current landlord stating that Gould did not owe the landlord any money for rent or damages. The landlord refused to issue the letter. The housing authority then terminated Gould‘s participation in the Section 8 program for her failure to comply with [her] family obligations and submit the required documents. The housing authority informed Gould of her right to contest the decision under the housing authority‘s administrative plan. Gould requested an informal hearing and was represented by counsel who recorded the hearing, although neither a copy of the recording nor a transcript of the informal hearing was included in the record on appeal.
Gould, 343 Ga. App. at 762 (citation omitted).2 In February 2016, the hearing officer issued his written decision, upholding the determination to discontinue housing assistance to Gould. The hearing officer found that, at the hearing, Gould acknowledged that her landlord had made a damages claim against her, that she, in fact, owed some money for damages, and that the damages claim remained unresolved. See
In March 2016, Gould filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Superior Court of Richmond County, seeking judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer. Gould asserted in her petition that the evidence adduced at her informal hearing failed to show by a preponderance—and under
The superior court issued a writ, and the writ and petition were served upon the Housing Authority. In response, the Housing Authority filed a motion to vacate the writ and dismiss the petition. The Housing Authority argued that an informal hearing on the termination of Section 8 housing assistance as required by Goldberg and the federal regulations is not a quasi-judicial
Following a hearing, the superior court granted the motion, vacated the writ, and dismissed the petition in September 2016. In its order, the superior court concluded that it was without “jurisdiction to review the results of the informal hearing pursuant to a petition for certiorari filed under
Gould appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed in a split decision. Writing for the majority, Presiding Judge McFadden looked to the federal regulations governing the administration of the Section 8 housing assistance program to identify the process to which Gould was entitled as of right, see 343 Ga. App. at 763-764, and he reasoned:
The record demonstrates that Gould had the right to proper notice and a fair hearing, that she was afforded the opportunity to present evidence under judicial forms of procedure, and that the hearing officer made his decision after determining the facts under a preponderance of the evidence standard and applying the appropriate law. Thus the hearing officer‘s decision was the result of quasi-judicial action.
Id. at 764. Because the decision was quasi-judicial, the majority concluded, it was within the certiorari jurisdiction of the superior court. The majority found it “irrelevant” that a public housing agency may in some circumstances determine that it is not bound by the decision of a hearing officer, noting the absence of any such determination in this case. Id. at 765. Joined by Judges Branch, McMillian, and Mercier, then-Judge Bethel dissented. Judge Bethel noted that a public housing agency is not strictly bound by the decision of a hearing officer, and he concluded that “the fact that the final act in this process
2.
“The writ of certiorari [in the superior court] shall lie for the correction of errors committed by any inferior judicatory or any person exercising judicial powers . . . .”
The performance of judicial acts under authority conferred upon courts is judicial in character, while the performance of judicial acts under authority conferred upon other persons, boards, or tribunals is quasi-judicial. Just as the authorized acts and functions of courts may or may not be judicial in character, so the authorized acts and functions of other officers or bodies may or may not be quasi-judicial in character, according to whether or not the character and nature of the authorized function and the authorized manner and method of its performance are made so by competent authority.
If a local government exercises a quasi-judicial power, its acts generally are subject to review by writ of certiorari in a superior court. If it exercises, however, only an executive or administrative power, the writ of certiorari will not lie. See Flowers, 300 Ga. at 823 (3).
We have acknowledged that “[t]he determination of what is a ministerial or administrative duty and what is a judicial function is often a matter of extreme difficulty.” City Council of Augusta v. Loftis, 156 Ga. 77, 82 (1) (118 SE 666) (1923). Indeed, what distinguishes a quasi-judicial act from an administrative one is not readily susceptible of terse definition. Even so, our precedents reveal three essential characteristics of a quasi-judicial act. First, a quasi-judicial act is one as to which “all parties are as a matter of right entitled to notice and to a hearing, with the opportunity afforded to present evidence under judicial forms of procedure.” South View, 199 Ga. at 481 (4). See also
The majority in the Court of Appeals looked to the procedures and process established by the federal regulations that govern Section 8 housing assistance and decided that those procedures and process satisfied the first two indicia of a quasi-judicial act. In doing so, the majority appears to have assumed that Gould had a right to insist upon the procedures and process established by the regulations, but for reasons we will discuss, it is not obvious to us that this assumption is sound. To be sure, it is perfectly clear that Gould was entitled by the Fourteenth Amendment‘s guarantee of due process to insist upon a Goldberg hearing as a matter of right. And so, Gould certainly was
This error would not matter if a Goldberg hearing and a hearing under the regulations were essentially the same. But they are not. Indeed, the regulations require procedures that Goldberg does not, and the procedures necessary to comply with Goldberg may not be enough to discharge the regulatory requirements. For instance, as Gould conceded at oral argument in this Court, the regulations afforded her an opportunity to review Housing Authority documents and records prior to the hearing, see
It is not immediately evident to us whether these distinctions ultimately would make a difference in whether the decision of the hearing officer is properly characterized as quasi-judicial. The Court of Appeals did not address that question, nor have the parties briefed it in this Court. To be sure, it would not matter at all if Gould was as entitled as a matter of right to the regulatory procedures and decisional process as she was to the constitutionally required procedures and process under Goldberg. But whether Gould has an individual
In a recent Eleventh Circuit decision, Judge William Pryor wrote a concurring opinion in which he questioned whether, for purposes of a lawsuit under
A congressional instruction to impose a duty on a state actor is not itself an act of imposing a duty on the states. In declining to impose a duty directly on public housing authorities in the text of
the Housing Act, Congress also declined to create any statutory right to a termination hearing that could be enforced through section 1983. So the corresponding regulation, 24 CFR § 982.555 (e) (6) , defines the content of a statutory provision that creates no federal right, instead of fleshing out the content of a right conferred by Congress.
Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). Moreover, Judge Pryor said, even if
The conclusions drawn by Judge Pryor in his concurring opinion strike us as more than plausible. They seem consistent with recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court about the way in which federal rights are created. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, ___ U. S. ___ (IV) (135 SCt 1378, 191 LE2d 471) (2015) (“Section 30(A) [of the Medicaid Act] lacks the sort of rights-creating language needed to imply a private right of action. It is phrased as a directive to the federal agency charged with approving state
Even if Judge Pryor is correct, it does not necessarily follow that the individual and legally enforceable “right” that is essential to the characterization of a decision for purposes of the writ of certiorari under Georgia law necessarily must be (if it is derived from federal law) a right that would sustain a claim under Section 1983. But it is not apparent either why we would define “right” differently. In any event, the majority in the Court of Appeals did not consider whether Gould had an individual and legally enforceable right under federal law to insist upon the procedures and process
4.
But we need not remand because it is apparent to us that the decision of the hearing officer in this case does not bear the third essential indicia of a quasi-judicial decision — that it be final, binding, and conclusive of the rights of the interested parties — regardless of whether we analyze the issues under the procedures and process established in the Section 8 regulations or only the procedures and process required under Goldberg, and regardless of whether the procedures and process to which Gould was entitled amounts to “judicial forms of procedure” and a decisional process of a judicial nature. The majority in the Court of Appeals did not consider the third indicia at all. But it is clear that a Goldberg hearing is not meant to be final, binding, and conclusive of the rights of the parties. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court explained in Goldberg that the informal hearing contemplated by that decision is only meant
Even assuming that the requirements that are set by regulation are the touchstone, it seems equally clear that a decision under the regulations is not final, binding, and conclusive of the rights of the parties for purposes of assessing certiorari jurisdiction under Georgia law. Gould points to regulations that provide in relevant part that a public housing agency is not bound by a decision of a hearing officer that “exceeds the authority of the person conducting the hearing under the [agency] hearing procedures,”
Second, the regulations leave it to the agency itself to decide whether legal error exists sufficient for the agency to disregard the decision of the
Third, even to the extent that the regulations contemplate that a decision of a hearing officer becomes final and binding upon the agency if and when the agency determines that it properly is bound, the regulations provide no time limit for the agency to make that determination. Indeed, the Housing Authority in this case did not treat the decision as final, instead offering to set a second hearing for Gould before she filed her petition for a writ of certiorari. Moreover, there is no requirement that the agency notify the recipient of its determination to be bound — although it must “promptly” give notice of a determination that it is not bound,
Whether or not Gould had a right to insist upon the procedures and process established by the Section 8 regulations or only the more limited procedures and process required under Goldberg — and whether or not Gould had a right to insist upon “judicial forms of procedure” and a decisional process that is judicial in nature — the decision of the hearing officer was not sufficiently final, binding, and conclusive of the rights of the parties to be properly characterized as a quasi-judicial decision for the purposes of Georgia certiorari law. The writ of certiorari does not lie for review of the hearing decision in this case, and the superior court was right to vacate the writ and dismiss the petition. The judgment of the Court of Appeals to the contrary is reversed.
Judgment reversed. Nahmias, P. J., Benham, Boggs, Warren, and Ellington, JJ., and Judge Kimberly Childs concur. Melton, C. J., concurs in judgment only. Peterson, J., not participating. Bethel, J., disqualified.
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 343 Ga. App. 761.
Hull Barrett, Christopher A. Cosper, for appellant.
Ira L. Foster, Kenneth J. Jones, Lisa J. Krisher, Susan A. Reif, for appellee.
Hunter Maclean Exley & Dunn, Christopher R. Jordan, amicus curiae.