Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bobby TUCKER; Z.T., a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-36096
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 02, 2016
    Bobby Tucker, Pro Se, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Donald S. Means, Deputy General Counsel, for Defendant-Appellee Seattle Housing Authority.
    Christopher A. Matheson, Counsel, Martin J. Pujolar, Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Linda Brosell, James E. Fearn.
    
      Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bobby Tucker and his minor child, Z.T., appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims relating to their project-based Section 8 housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because appellants failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they were entitled to a grievance procedure and to remain on the housing wait list. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(13)(J) (family retains place on waiting list only where family “rejects an offer of project-based assistance”); Moore v. Nw. Fabricators, Inc., 51 Wash.2d 26, 314 P.2d 941, 942 (1957) (“Abandonment, as applied to leases, involves an absolute relinquishment of premises by a tenant, consisting of act or omission and an intent to abandon.”); 24 C.F.R. § 983.256(f)(3)(ii) (“The term of the lease terminates if ... [t]he tenant terminates the lease”); 24 C.F.R. § 983.261(d) (“If the family terminates the assisted lease before the end of one year, the family relinquishes the opportunity for continued tenant-based assistance.”).

We do not consider new evidence introduced on appeal. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).

Appellants’ requests for appointment of counsel are denied.

Appellants’ motion to expedite the case, filed on May 23,2016, is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.