H on. Am y S t
. Eve, Dis t ri c tJ udge f or the N or the rnDis t ri c tof  I l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1964 M ARS HALL F INCHER, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. S OUT H B EN D H ER IT AGE F OU ND A T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:07- CV-308

—Phi li p P. Si mon, Chief Judge.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 26, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 10, 2010

Befo re F L A U M an d W O OD , C ircu it Judges, an d S T . E VE , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  F LA UM, Ci r c u i tJ udg e . De f en dan t- appe l l ee S o uth Be nd H er i ta g e F o unda ti o n ( “S BH F ”) de ni ed pl aint i ff

- appe l l an t M ar sh all Fin c h er ’s a p p lica tio n for Se c tio n 8 h ou s i n g in its bu ild in g b e c au se Fin c h er h ad a p rior ev ict ion w ith in2 N o. 09

- 1964

Se c t i on 8 i s us ed thr ougho utthi s opi ni on t o r efert o S ec t i on 8 1 o f th e U n ite d St a te s H o u sin g A ct, a s a m en d ed , 4 2 U .S.C . § 1 4 3 7 f. th r ee y ea r s. F i nc he r b r o ug hta su it ag ains t S BH F o n the th eo r y tha t he was de ni ed due pr o ce ss o fl aw, o r, i n the al ter nati ve, thatS BH F b re ached a contr act w i th the Unite d S ta te s Depa r tment ofHous i nga nd Urba n De ve l o pm en t ( “H U D”) to w hi ch Fi ncher w as a thi rd- partybene fi c iary. On app eal, Fincher re cogni zes thatthe contr ol l i ng pre cedent i n thi s Ci rcui t ho l ds that ther e i s no cause o fact i on for a p er so n in h is p os itio n . SeeEidson v. P ie rc e, 74 5 F
. 2d 4 3 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 4 )
. F i n c h e r a s k s u s t o o v e r t ur n o ur p r e c e d e n t o n th i s i s s u e . F o r th e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, we c ho o s e n o tt o o v e r r ule E idson a nd we affi r m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent.

I . B a c kg r o und T h e fa c ts of th is c as e a re st ra igh tfo rw ar d an d n otin di spu te f o r the purpos e o fthi s appe al

. S o uth Be nd H ousi ng Au thor i ty ( “SBH A ”) ev i cted pl ai nti ff

- ap pel l ant, M ar shal l Fincher f ro m o ne o fi ts pu bl i c housing un its. F i nc he r th en appl i ed to l i ve i n a n a par tmentb ui l di ng own ed by SBH F as a Se cti on 8 tenant. SBH F d en ied 1 Fi ncher’ s a pp l i cati on be cause ofhi s r ecen t evi cti on fro m S BH A ho us i ng . S BH F di d no t g r an t F i nc he r a hea ri ng concerni ng the deni alo fhi s a pp l i cati on f orte nancy. Fi ncher fil ed sui t a gai nst b oth SBH A and SBH F in sta te co ur t al l eg i nga numbe r o fv i o lati o ns o fS ec ti o n 8 a nd othe r housi ng l aw s. S B H A rem ove d the ca se to f edera lN o. 09

- 1964 3

c o u r t
. H o we v e r, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tr e ma n d e d th e c l a i ms involving SB H A back to sta te cou rt beca us e the y w ere i nherent l y tied to the sta te cour t e vi cti on pro ceedi ngs and thus fel l under the Ro o ke r - F e l d m an doctr i ne. I n an ear l i ero pini on we dis m i sse d the appealo fthe dist rict cou rt’s dec isi on regard ing the SBH A clai m s beca us e “[a]n or der r em anding a case to the S tat e co urt f ro m wh i ch it w as rem oved is not review able on app eal o r ot he rw i se. ” Fincher v. South B end Housing Authority, 578 F
. 3d 567, 568 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng 28 U
. S. C. § 1 447( d))

. The di str i ct c o u r tr e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r th e c l a i m s a g a i n s tS B HF an d gra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t in fav or o f SB H F. In gr anti ng sum m ary j ud gm ent, the dist ri ct c ourtr el i ed o n the se tt l ed S ev en thCi r cui t pr ec ede nttha t S ec ti o n 8 ho us i nga ppl i ca nt s do not h ave a de fi ne d pr o per tyr i g ht in rec eiv in g h ou sin g a t a s p ec ific loc at ion th at w ou ld en tit le them to a du e pr oce ss hear i ng. The di str i ct co ur t al so r ej ec te d F i nc he r ’ s cl ai m th at F i nc he r had enf o r ce ab l e r i g ht s as a thi r d- par tyb en efi ci ar y to a c o ntr act between H U D and S BH F.

I I . Discussi on On app eal, Fincher ad vances two m ai n ar gum ents f or wh y w e s h o u l d r e v e r s e th e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mm ar y j ud gm ent: ( 1) we shoul d over tu rn our pri orpre cedent and fi nd thatS ecti on 8 housi ng appl i cants do have an enf or ceabl e pr oper ty ri ght s uc h t h at i t warr ants a du e p ro c ess hear i ng wh en the y a re deni ed housi ng ata speci fi c Se cti on 8 housi ng l oca ti on; and ( 2) he p u t fo rth sufficie n t evi dence to cr eat e a tr i abl e i ssue off act re -4 N o. 09

- 1964 gar ding hi s cl ai m as a th ird-party b enefi ci ar y t o a c on tr act between S BH F a nd H U D. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ou rt ’s g ra n t o f su m m ar y j u d ge m en t d e n ov o. D ars tv. Int e rs t at eBr ands Corp. , 512 F.3d 903 , 907 (7th C ir. 2008). S um m ar y j udg m en t i s pr o perwher e “the r e i s no ge n u in e is su e o f m at er ial fac t a n d th e m ov in g p ar ty is enti tl ed to a j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” Id. ; F ed. R. C iv. P. 56(c).

A . Revi si t i ng Eids on v. Pi erce Finch er recogn izes that the h o lding of E idson v. Pier ce, 74 5 F
. 2d 45 3 ( 7th Ci r. 1 984) co nt r o l s th i s ca se a nd sq ua rely con trad icts the outc om e he is seeking. H ow ever, Fi ncher encour age s us to ov er rule Eids on a nd a do pt th e anal ysi s fro m a N i nth Cir cui t o pini on o n th i s i ssue that pre- dates Eids on an d find s t h at th er e i s a n en for c ea b le proper ty ri ght in t h i s s i tuati on. Fincher al so poi nts t o a case o u t ofthe Dist ri ct o fN ew J er seyand a c ase fro m the S up re m e Ju dici alCourto fM ass achusett s, bo th o f w hich cam e after Eids on , to supp or t hi s p osi ti on that cour ts ar e no w fo llow i ng the N i nth Cir cui t a pp ro ach and ther ef or e we shoul d rev i si t the i ssue. W e st ar t byr ev i ewi ngthe an al y si s i n Eids on . In Eids on , we add re sse d the sa m e quest i on pre sente d here : do S ec ti o n 8 ho us i nga ppl i ca nt s who m ee t al l Secti o n 8 re q u ire m en ts an d h av e a l re ad y b ee n d ee m ed eligib le f orS ecti on 8 have a prot ec te d r i ght that e nti tl es them to som e f or m o fdue proc ess wh en t h ey ar e r ej ecte d f rom a speci fi c S ecti on 8 housi ng uni t? Eids on hel d thatN o. 09

- 1964 5 th e y d o n o t
. T h e c o u r ti n Eids on fi r stl o o k ed to the langu age of Section 8. Section 8 auth orizes the Secret ary ofH U D to m ake “a ssi sta nce paym ents
. . . with r espect to ex ist in g, n ew ly c on st ru c te d , an d su b st an tia lly re h ab ilitated hou sing” for the p urp ose “o f a id ing low eri nc o m e f ami l i es in obtai ni nga de ce ntpl ac e to l i ve a nd ofprom oting ec onom i cal l y m i xed housi ng. ” Eids on , 74 5 F.2 d a t 4 57 ( ci ti ng 42 U
. S. C. § 1 437f ( a) ( 1982 ) )
. These pa y me n t s t o th e o wn e r a r e i n t e n d e d t o ma k e up t he di ff e r e nc e b e t we e n wha tthe S e c t i o n 8 t e na ntp a y s a nd a m axi m um f ai r m ar ke t r ent e stabl i shed i n the contr act b e t we e n HUD a nd the p ri vat e o wne r . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 437f ( c) ( 3)
. U nd er the contr act, the pri vate o w ner re m ains r es p ons ib l e f o r the o per at i o n a nd mana g ement o fthe ho us i nguni ts
. S ec ti o n 8 di r ec ts tha t th e co ntr act between the Se cre tar y a nd the pri vate o w ner [S ] ha l l pr o vi de th ata l l o wner sh i p, mana g ement, a nd m ai ntenance re sponsibi l i ti es, i ncl ud i ng the se l ecti on ofte nants a nd the te rm inati on o fte nancy, shal l be ass ume d b y the o wne r ( o r a ny e nt i t y . . . wi th wh i ch th e ow ner m ay contr act f orthe perf or m ance o f such r esponsibi l i ti es) , exce pt thatthe tenant sel ecti on cr i te ria shal l gi ve prefer ence to f am i l i es w hi ch occupy s ubstandard housi ng o r ar e invol untari ly dis p l aced atthe ti m e they a re se eking housing as si sta nc e unde r thi s se ct i o n. Eids on , 74 5 F
. 2d at 457 (citing 42 U
. S. C. § 1 437f ( e) ( 2) ( 1982 ) )
. U nd erthe re gul ati ons prom ulg ate d i n re sp onse to th is s ta tu te , the o wnermay co ns i derwhethe r a t en an t i s “o th er wi se a cc ept abl e” i n a ddi ti o n t o c o ns i der i ng6 N o. 09

- 1964

w hetherthe tenant m eet s the s ta tu tor y r equi re m ents f or S ec ti o n 8 hous i ng . 2 4 C. F
. R. § § 88 0. 21 8(b) ( 3) a nd ( 4)
. The H UD Handb o o kr einf o r ce s th i s di sc r et ionb y s ta ting th at“ ea chOwners ho ul d de ve l op reas o nabl e Te na nt sel ecti on pro cedures

. . . desi gned to se l ect ap pli cants w ho wil l noto nl y m eetthe Tenant el i gibi l i ty re quir em ents f orH U D’s subsi dy p ro gr am s but w i l l al so be re sponsibl e t enants. ” Eids on , 74 5 F
. 2 d a t4 5 9 ( c i t i n gHUD H andbook ¶¶ 2- 8, G er m ai n A pp . at38 )
. Based o n thes e st atut o r y prov isi o ns a nd r egul at i o ns , the c o ur t i n Eids on r ec o g ni ze d a t en si o n b etwe en th e lo ftyg o al s o fS ec ti o n 8 an d the r ea l i ty th at th er e i s a g ap be twe enS ec ti o n 8 re sour ces an d the nee ds ofal l tho se el i gibl e f orS ecti on 8
. The c o ur t i n Eids on r eas oned thatC on gr ess i ntended to r emedy thi s te ns i o n i n a pr ac ti cal m an ne r b y a l l o wi ng pri vate o w ners to co nsi der l ess ta ngibl e f actors , s uch as w hetheran in d ivid ual would be a r esponsibl e t enant, i n additi on t o sta tutor y e l i gibi l i ty. A gai nst thi s ba ckdro p, the cour t th en tur ned to w h et h er an ap p lica n t fo r a s p ec if i c S e c tio n 8 re sidence has a due pro cess r i ght t o a hea ri ng i fhe i s deni ed housi ng. The co urt l oo ked to o ur previo usl y a dopted state m en t tha t a l e g it im ate claim of en titl em en t to w arr a n t a d u e p r o c e s s h e a r i n g o c c u r s “ o n l y whe n t he sta t u t e s of regu lations i n q ue stion esta bli sh a fram ew ork of f actu al c ond iti ons de li m iti ng entitlem en ts w hich are capabl e of being explo re d a t a due pro cess hear i ng. ” Id. at 4 5 9

- 6 0 ( qu o t i ng G e ne va Towe rs Te nan t s O rganizat i on v. Fed erated M o rtg a g e Inv estors , 50 4 F
. 2d 483 ( 9th Ci r. 19 74) ( H ufs tedl er, J
. di sse nti ng)). A pp l yi ng thi s defi ni ti on t o Se cti on 8 , i t i s cl earthatther e i s no l egitim ate cl ai m toN o. 09

- 1964 7

en tit lem en t fo r in d ivid u a l s rej ec te d from a sp ec ific h ou sin g uni t. U nd erS ecti on 8 , ev en i fa pla i nti ffpro ved th atthe l and lo r d r el i ed o n f al se i nf o r m at i o n i n c o m i ng to its dec isi on to d en y the plaintiffhou sing, th e plaintiff st i l l woul d no t be en ti tl ed to th e ho us i ng so l ong as the h ou s i n g w en t t o a n ot h er eligib le c an d id at e. Id. There f or e, th e d u e p r oc es s h ea rin g w ou ld be m ea n in gle ss . Id. The co ur t i l l us tr at ed th i s po i ntb y di st i ng ui sh i ng Sec ti o n 8 f ro m the H ill Burto n A ct, 42 U
. SC. §§ 29 1 e t s eq. , wh i ch was a t i ss ue i n D avi s v. Bal l M e m or i al Hos pi t a l As s oc i at i on , 640 F. 2d 30, 42 ( 7th Ci r. 1980)
. U nd erthe H i l l

- Bu rt on A ct, hospi tal s r ecei vi ng federa l fund i ng m ust pro vi de “a re aso nabl e v olu m e ofse rv i ces to perso ns unabl e t o pay th er efo r ” to the e xt en t th atthe fi nanc ial c o ndi ti o n o fthe fac ility p er m its
. D avis , 64 0 F
. 2d at 32 ( citin g 4 2 U
. S. C. § 2 91c( e) )
. A s o ne m ay ex p ec t, f re e ho spi tal c ar e s u ffer s fro m th e s am e s c ar c ity p ro b lem as p u b lic housi ng. H owever, the H i l l

- Bu rt on A ct set out a cl earfi rs tc om e-fir st -se rv e b as is for es ta b lish i n g an en tit lem en t. Id. at 42 -43 . Th er efo re , a h ea rin g c ou ld es ta b lish fa c ts su ffici en t f o r a ne ut r alhe ar i ngo ffi ce r t o de te r m i ne i fthe in d ivid u al w a s e n tit led to th es e s er vic es . U n like th e H illBur to n Act, S ec ti on 8 pr o vi des no c l ea r de ci si o n- m ak i ng st r uctur e. Ra th er, S ec ti o n 8 pr ovides l an dl o r ds wi tha ser i es ofgui del i nes t o apply w hen choo si ng be tw een tw o el i gibl e ca nd i dates and l eave s the l andlo rd with co ns i der ab l e di sc r et i o n i n mak i ngthe fi na l de ci si o n. Our c i r cui t an d o th erc i r cui ts hav e re l i ed o n Eids on in ad d re ss in g sim ilar ca se s. T h e E igh th C irc u it s p e c i f i c a l l y a d o p t e d th e r e a s o n i n gfr o m Eids on wh en8 N o. 09

- 1964 d ec id in g a n ea rly id en tic al c as e. H i l l v. Gr oup Thre eHous i ng D e ve l opm e ntCorporat i on , 79 9 F
. 2d 385 ( 8th C i r. 1986)
. A l so, th i s C o u r ta p p l i e d th e r e a s o n i n gfr o m Eids on i n Tall ey v . Lan e, 13 F. 3d 1031 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) , to r ej ect an al l ege d du e pr oce ss vi ol at ion w hen the pla i nti ffwas rej ecte d fro m the Ch i cago H ousi ng Au thor i ty’ s ho usi ng pro gr am f orthe disabl ed becau se o fhi s e xtensi ve cri m i nal hi sto ry . 13 F. 3d at 1035
. These case s dem onstrat e that co urts , i nc l udi ngo ur s, ha ve r ec o ns i der ed an d e ndo r se d the r e a s o n i n gfr o m Eids on . F i nc he r r ai se s se ve r ali ss ue s i n h i s ar g um en t f or why we s ho ul d o ve r tu r n Eids on . Fi rs t, he r epeat ed ly poi nts t o R ess le r v. P ie rc e, 69 2 F
. 2d 1212 ( 9th Ci r. 19 82) , a N i nth C irc uitcas e that di re ctl y c ontr adic ts Eids on . T he p r o b l em wi th th i s r e l i a n c e i s th a tth i s C o u r th a s a l r e a dy s p e c i fi c a l l y r ej e c t e d th e r e a s o n i n gfr o m R essleri n Eids on . Eids on , 745 F
. 2d at4 60
. T he c o ur t i n Eids on di d not f o l l o w R esslerb ec au se the de ci si o n i n R essler r e s t e d o n a defini ti on o f“cl ai m o fenti tl em ent” that ou r ci rcui t had p re vio u sly rejec te d

. Id. (“A s n ot ed ab ov e, h ow ev er , th is ci rcui t has co nsi ste ntl y fol l owed the re aso ni ng o f J udg e H uf st edl er ’ s di ss en t i n G enev a To w ers r atherthan th e m aj o r i tyo pi ni o n r el i ed o n i n R essler
. I n o u r v i e w, th a t r e a s o n i n g c o mpe l s th e c o n c l u s i o n th a t th e s e pl ai ntiffs do n ot hav e prot ecte d prop erty interests
. ”). Fi ncher next di re cts our att en ti on t o Baldwi n v . Hous i ng A u th ority of the City of Ca m den, N
. J. , 27 8 F
. S up p. 2d 36 5 ( D .N .J. 20 03 ). H ow ev er , B aldw in i s n o ti ns t r uct i ve he r e. The cou rt i n B aldw in dedica tes near l y a page to d i s t i n g u i s h i n gth a tc a s e fr o m Eids on . 27 8 F
. S up p. 2d at37 9.N o. 09

- 1964 9 I n B aldw in the questi on w as w hetheran ind i vi du alhad a ri g htt o a du e p r o c e s s h e a r i ngwh e n s he wa s de ni ed el i g ibi l i tyf o r th e Se ct i o n 8 ho us i ngpr o g r am i n Ca m den, N ew J er se y . Thi s is a di ff er en t i ss ue tha n the o ne addr es se d i n E i ds on . I n Eids on we di d no t addr es s th e i ssue ofwh at du e p roces s r i ghts an i nd i vi du alhas w hen hi s a pp l i c a t i o n f o r e l i g ib i l i ty f o r S e c t i o n 8 i s de ni e d. Rather, we add re sse d the i ssue ofwh at d ue pro cess ri ghts an el i gibl e a pp l i cant ha s when he i s deni ed hou sing at a s p ecifi c reside nc e. B y ap p lyi ng the sta nd ard f o r an en ti tl ementr i g httha t we a ppl i ed i n Eids on , the dec i si on i n B aldw in co m p or ts w ith th e re as on in g in Eids on . W hen address i ng the el i gibi l i ty ofan ind i vi du al f ora Se cti on 8 vo ucher, ther e i s a fra m ew or k off actual con d iti ons that cou ld be ex p lored at a d ue proc ess h eari ng . A ne ut r alhe ar i ngo ffi ce r c o ul d fi nd c er ta i n f ac ts a nd o r de r a r e med y

— that the ind i vi du albe f ound to b e el igible f o r a S ec ti o n 8 v o uch er . Thi s i s di ff er en t f r o m the si tuati on wh er e a n el i gibl e a pp l i cant ha s be en r ej ected f r o m a s pec i fi c r es i den ce . I n thi s l at ters i tu at i o n, a he ar i ngo ffi ce r woul d b e po wer l es s to c ha ng e th e si tu
ati on under the st atuto rysche m e r ega rdl es s of what f a c t s the h e a r i ngo ffi c e r f o un d. Lastl y, F i ncher ci tes M ade r a v. Se cre t ary of t heExe cu t i ve O f f i ceof Com m uni t i e s & D e ve l opm e nt, 63 6 N
. E.2 d 1326 ( Ma s s . 1 9 9 4 ) a s n e w aut ho r i t y o n th e i s s u e a th a n d

. Ho wev er , M ade r a add re sse s a si tuati on wh er e the defendants w er e a lleg ed ly in vio lat ion of n u m er o u s s ta te p u b lic ho us i ngr egul at i o ns tha t se t f o r th m an dat o r y pr i o r i tya nd prefer ence cate gor i es. 63 6 N
. E.2 d at 1 330. The M a dera cou rt s pe c i fi c a l l y r e c o g ni z e d the di ff e r e nc e b e t we e n the s tat e10 N o. 09

- 1964

re gul ati ons at i ssue i n that case and the fed er alr egul ati o ns a t i ss ue i n Eids on . Id. at13 30 -31 . Th er efo re , M a dera d o e s n o tc a l l i n t o qu e s t i o n th e r e a s o n i n gfr o m Eids on . Fi ncher’ s l astar gum ent o n th e d ue pro cess i ssue i s that the di str i ct c ourter re d by no t con sid er i ng wh ether SB H F w as a state actor w h e n d e t erm ining if Eids on pre cl ude d a s ui t unde r the due pr o ce ss c l au se . F o r the due proce ss cl aim t o su rv i ve to the s um m ar y j ud gm ent s tag e o f l i t i g a t i o n, th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a d t o a s s u me t ha t S B HF w as a state actor. I f SB H F w as no t a s t a t e a ctor, there w oul d be n o d ue pro cess cl ai m atal l

. Contr ar y t o Fi ncher’ s a rgum ent, th e d i str i ct c ourtas sum ed that SBH F was a sta te acto r and sti l l f ound that Fincher had no due pro cess r i ght t o a hea rin g as a te nant r ej ecte d fro m a sp ec ific Se c tio n 8 h ou sin g loc at ion
. Because Eids on was a w ell

- r ea so ne d o pi ni o n, a nd no si gni fi cant c h an ges i n the l aw have o ccurr ed bet w een when we de ci ded th atc as e an d no w , w e d ec l i ne the invitation to ove r tu rn Eid s on and affi rm the dist ri ct cour t o n the du e pr oce ss chal l enge.
B. Fi nch eras a Thir d-Par ty Be nefi ci ary t o a Contr act Fi nche r n ex t ass er ts that he i s e nti tl ed to br i ng sui t a s a thi rd- partybene fi ci ar y ofa contr act enter ed i nto be twe enS BH F a nd i ts fundi nga g en ci es , na m el y HU D. The d istri ct c ourtr ej ecte d thi s cl ai m bec ause Fi ncher did not pr o duce the c o nt r ac t nordi d F i nc he r i den ti fy a ny c on tr ac t t er m s o r p ro v isio n s h e b elie ve s p ro vid e h im w i th the basi s f or a cl ai m as a thi rd- party be nefi ci ar y.N o. 09

- 1964 11 Fin c h er cla im s t h e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed by req u irin g h im to c i te a c o nt r ac t o r c o nt r ac tu alpr o vi si o n f o rwhi ch he i s a th i r d

- p a r t y b e n e fi c i a r y . He r e l i e s o n Ll oyd v. Regi onal Transport ation Authority, 54 8 F
. 2d 1277( 7th C ir. 19 77) f or th e pr o po si ti o n tha t “the thi r d- par tyb en efi ci ar y s ta tu s i n federa l l y fund ed p ro gr am s s tem s a l one f ro m the exi ste nc e o fa dm i ni st r at ive r ul es i m po se d b y the fundi ng sour ce a nd the re ci pie nt o fth os e fund s. ” How eve r, at both the dist ri ct cou rtl eve l and on a pp eal, Fincher d id not po i ntt o a ny s pec i fi c r egul at i o ns tha t co ul d s ta nd in th e p lac e o f a c on tr ac t t o s u p p or t h is c l a im s. Inh is re plybr i ef, F in c h er ci tes to 24 C. F. R. § 880. 550( a) , wh i ch r equi r es tha t th er e ex i st s so m e co nt r ac t be twe enHU D a nd Se cti on 8 l andlo rds. Thi s a rgum ent m i sses th e poi nt. Fi ncher sti l l m ust poi nt to speci fi c r egul ati ons ( or contr act provi si ons) thatar e be i ng vi ol ate d i n thi s ca se to giv e r i s e t o a c au se of ac tio n . I t is p os sib le t h at th is abse nce i s intenti onal because , as poi nted out by Eids on , the r egul ato ryst ructur e doe s no t pr ovi de any enf or ceab le righ ts to in d ivid u als ap p lyin g to live in a s p ec ific S ec ti o n 8 r es i d en ce . W i th o utpo i nt i ngt o s o m e co ntr actualpro vi si on ( orr egul ati on) thatgr ants hi m thes e ri ghts an d t h at SBH F has vi ol ate d, thi s cl ai m cannot stan d

. Th e d istri ct cou rt correctly gran t e d sum m ary j ud gm ent o n thi s i ssue.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe abov e s tat ed re aso ns, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofS BH F.

5- 10- 10