FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH ]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1421 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-014 47-CV- H- S
GW ENDOLYNERVIN , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us HOUSING AUTHO RITY OF THE BIRMI NGHAM DISTRICT, RAL PH D. RU GG S, in his official capacity as E xecutive Dire ct orof Ho us in g Au th or it y Bir m in gh am

Dis tri ct , L IN D A CA RR O L L , in he r of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s Se ct ion8 H ousi ng Auth or ity Bi rm ing ha m

D istri ct , D e f

e n d an t s - A

p p e l l e e s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Alabam a

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 17, 200 8)2

Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A a nd MA RC U S , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: G w en dol yn E rv in a

ppe al s th e dis trict co ur t’ s e ntr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of the H ousin g Authority of the Birm ingh am

Dist rict (“ Housing Authority ”); Ra lphRu ggs, the D ir ec tor of the H ousi ng A uth or ity ; an d L ind a Carr oll , the S ec tio n 8 C oor din at or

of the H ousi ng Auth or ity
. E rv in b ro ught sui t a fte r the H ousi ng A uth or ity te rm ina te d he r fe de ra l re nta l be ne fi ts, w hic h she ha d be en rec ei vin g pur suant t o S ec tio n 8 o f the N at ion al H ousi ng A ct of 193 7, a s a m en de d by

the H ousi ng and C om

m uni ty D ev el op m en t A ct

of 197 4, 42 U
. S. C. § 14 37f ( “ H ousi ng A ct ”)
. E rv in s ough t de cl ar at or y a nd inj unc tiv e re lie f, pur suant t o 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83, al le gin g th at

the H ousi ng Auth orit y ha d violate d he r pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s r igh ts unde r the F ourte en th A m en dm en t when it fa ile d to c om ply w ithD ep ar

tm en t of H ousi ng and U rb anD ev el opm en t ( “ H U D ”) r eg ul at ions gov er nin g be ne fi ts te rm ina tio n pr oc ed

ur es . O n a

ppe al , E rv in arg ue s: ( 1) that the dis tr ic t co urt e rr ed by
en te ri ng s um

m ar y j udgm en t be ca

use she rece ived i nsuf fi ci en t no tic e of

the te rm ina tio n of

he r be ne fi ts, a nd ( 2) that he r he ar ing be fo re the H ousi ng A uth or ity did not c om ply w iththe adm ini str at ive re gul at ion s ap pli ca ble to Se ct ion8 pr oc ee din gs. Af ter careful r eview, we vacate and rem and fo r t h e district court’ s further3

co nsi de ratio n, in lig ht o f our int er ve nin g de ci sio n in Ba sc o v. Ma ch in, 514 F
. 3d 1 177 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8)
. W e re view the district court’ s order granting summ ary j udgm ent de novo . See Mad ray v. Pu bl ix Supe rm ark et s, In c., 20 8 F .3d 12 90 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th Cir . 20 00 ). A
m oti on f or sum m ar y jud gm en t sh oul d be gr an te d “ if the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns,
a n s w e r s t o i n t e rr o g a t o r i e s , a n d a d mi s s i o n s o n f i l e , t o g e t h e r

wi t h t h e a f

f i d a v i t s , i f a n y, showthat the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to a ny m at er ia l fa ct an d tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is e nt i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . ” F e d
. R
. C i v . P
. 5 6 ( c )
. “ W he re the
re co rd ta ke n a s aw hol e co uld

not le ad ar at ion al tr ie r of f

act to f ind f or the non m ovi ng p ar

ty , the re is no ‘ ge nui ne issue f or tr ia l. ’ ” Ma tsu shi taE le c. I ndus
. Co
. v. Z en ithRa dio Co rp . , 475 U
. S. 574 , 587 (1 986) (quot ing Fi rs t N at ’ l Bank of A ri zo na v. Ci ti es Serv . Co., 3 91 U.S. 25 3, 2 89 (19 68 )). T he sum m ar y j udgm en t r ec or d inthi s ca se is not vol um ino us. I n su ppor t of it s
m oti on f or s um m ar y j u d gm en t, the H ousi ng Auth or ity sub m itt ed , a m ong oth er

thi ngs, the a ff idavi t of D ef

en da nt C ar

ro ll, w ho c ondu ct ed

the a dm ini str at ive he ar ing on Er vin’s benef

its. I n her aff

idavit, Car

rol l described the testim ony she considered pr ior to en te ri ng an or de r te rm ina tin g E rv in’ s be ne fi ts. T he H ousi ng Auth or ity a lso subm itted Ervin’ s affidavit. In o ppos ition to summ ary j udgm ent, E rvin sub m itted her
own de po si ti on .In her a ffidavit, Carroll described the contents of F isher’s letter , althoug h the letter itself w as 1 not included in the HousingAuthority ’s summary judgme nt materials.
4 A cc or din g to Carr oll ’ s a ff idavit , she c ondu ct ed

a n in fo rm al a dm ini str at ive he ar ing on E rv in’ s r en ta l be ne fi ts o n N ove m be r 30, 200 5. C ar

ro ll de sc ri be d th e
ev ide nc e she c onsi de re d a t the he ar ing a s f oll ow s: • E rvin was a part i cipant in the Housing Authority ’ s Section 8 Rental A ssi stanc e Pr ogr am

( “ Pr ogr am ”), whic h r ec ei ve s f ed er al hou sin g subs idi es f

ro m the H U D , pur suant to an “ an nua l c ontri but ing c ontra ct ” an d th e im

ple m en tin g re gul at ion s fo r Se ct ion8 pr ogr am s, 24 C
. F. R. §§ 98 2.1 et s eq . • H el enH y d e , the H ousi ng Auth or ity ’ s A ssi stant M an ag er of L ea se d and Section 8 Housing, testified at the adm inistrative hear ing about a letter, dated August 28 , 20 0 5 , from Captain Mike Fisher of the B irm ingh am Po lic e Dep art m en t. F ish er se nt the le tte r to E rv in’ s landl or d, L ev ie Satis fi el d I II , inf

orm in g hi m

that a se ar chw ar

rant h ad be ense rv ed

on his pr op e rt y

o n A ug us t2 5, 2 00 5, a nd t hatdur i ng t he s e a r c h, i llegal na rc oti cs w er e fo und on the pr ope rty . Satis fi el d fo rw arded Ca pta in F i s h e r ’s l e t t e r

t o t h e Ho u s i n g Au th o r i t y. 1 • On Sept e m

be r 1 4, 2 00 5, t he H ou si ng A utho r i t y s e nt E rvi n al e t t er i n fo rming her that her S ection 8 benefits would term inate on October 31, 2005, based on her failure to com ply with 24 C.F .R. § 982.533 (a)( 1), which provides fo r t erm ination of housin g assistance if the leased pro p er t y i s used for drug-relate d crim inal activity
. The le tter w as attached as an exhibit to Carroll’ s affidavit. In a sec tion enti t l ed
“ Fa ct ua l B as is f

or D et er m ina tio n, ” the le tte r sta te d “ use of pr ope rty f or illegal drug sales and/o r purchase. ” T he letter a lso advised Ervin of her ri ght to re que st an in fo rm al he ar ing
. • Ra ch el K ing , a Re ce rt if ic at ion Sp ec ia lis t in the S ec tio n 8 D ep ar tm en t of the H ousi ng Auth or ity , m ad e the ini tia l de ci si on t o te rm ina te5

assistance to Ervin. On S eptem ber 20, 2005, K ing received a w ritten req ue st fro m

Ervi n fo r a h eari ng on th e te rm in at io n d eci s i on . On N ove m be r 30, 200 5, a n in fo rm al he ar ing too k pl ac e be fo re Carr oll
. • Be lin da Carw el l, one of E rv in’ s ne ighbor s, te sti fi ed tha t onA ugus t 25 , 2005 , she saw polic e of fi ce rs pic k up “ re ef

er ” in the f

ro nt y ar d of Er vin’s hom e and that “ there w as a girl there .” • In addition to th e fore goin g testim ony , the H ousin g Authority ’ s lawy er reported to Carr oll that sh e h ad spoken to the Birm ingh am Police De p a r t me n tan dl ea rn ed t h at t wo d et ec t i v es h ad g o n e t o Erv i n ’s residence on August 25, 2005
. The f i rst detective w ent to the uni t at ap pr oxi m at el y

9:0 0 A.M. a nd m ad e a na rc oti cs a rr es t of af em al e in poss es sio n of pow de r co ca ine an d m ar ij ua na . A se co nd de te ct ive ex ec ute d a se arch warr an t l at er in the day

a nd s ei ze d th re e m ar ij ua na pl an ts
. • Er vin testified that no police officer s had entered her apartm ent when she w as hom e, a nd tha t sh e ha d no t se enasearch warra nt f or the pr e m i se s. I n r e sp on se t o C a rr ol l ’ s qu e st i on i ng abo ut t he o t he r

girl (described by

neighbo r Carw ell), Er

vin said th at “ Sharon Rus h” had be e n a rr e st e d a th e r

apart m e nt
. N ot abl y , E rvi n a r gu e d t hatR us h ha d co m e to a pre vio usl y

sc he dul ed

he ar ing , w hic h ha d be enc an ce lle d, but co uld not a tte nd the se co nd h eari ng. Fo llo w ing the he ar ing , D ef en da nt Carr oll f

ile d aw ri tte n r ep ort up hol din g th e te rm ina tio n of

E rv in’ s ho usi ng b en ef

its
. S he m ad e the f

oll ow ing f

ac tua l f ind ing s: The ow ner of the unit fo r w hich Ms. E rvin receives S ection 8 rental as sis tanc e w as not if

ie d inw ri tin g by

the Bi rm ing h am

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t that a search warrant wa s executed at the unit and “ illegal narcotics we re found.” T he owner provided the Housing Authorityof the Birm ingh am District Section 8 Of

fice with a cop y of the notice. T he HA BD attorney

. . . c onf irm ed that a narc oti c ar

re st w as m ad e at the uni t onA ugus t 25 , 2005 r es ult ing in the se iz ur e of m ar ij ua na plants w ithastr ee t va lue of6

ap pr oxi m at el y

$6, 000. 00. N o ev ide nc e w as pr es en te d a t the ti m e of the h e a r i n g t o t h e c o n t r a ry. Carr oll determ ined that a preponderance of the evidence e stablish ed that Er vin had vio l at ed one of the requirem ents of her Se ction 8 rental assistance by allowing her unit to be used for drug-relate d crim inal activity
. On ap p ea l , the district court af fi rm ed
. T his appe al f

oll ow ed
. First, Er vin ar gues that she rece ived insu fficient notice for term ination of her hous ing be ne fi ts. T he appl ic ab le r eg ula tio n pr ovi de s th at a te rm ina tio n notic e m ust

“ (1 ) Co nta in a

br ie f sta te m en t of re as ons fo r the de ci sio n [to te rm ina te a ssi stanc e] ; ( 2) State that if the f

am ily do es n o t ag re e w ith the decision , the f am ily m ay request an inf orm al he ar ing on the de ci sio n; and (3 ) St at e the de ad lin e fo r the f am ily to re que st
aninf orm al he ar ing
. ” S ee 24 C
. F. R. § 98 2. 555( c) (2 ). I t i s un dis put ed that the la st two re quirem ents wer e satisfied here. Er vin contends that the inform ation contain ed in the not ic e w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o c onst itu te a“ br ie f sta te m en t of r ea sons f or the decision to term inate assistance,” within the m eaning of § 982 .555(c)( 2). W e hav e int er

pr et ed the “ sta te m en t of

r ea sons ” fo r the te rm ina tio n of S ec tio n 8 be ne fi ts a s f

oll ow s: “ Su cha sta te m en t m ust be suf fi ci en tly spe ci fi c fo r it to e nable
an ap pl ic a n t t o p rep are r eb ut ta l ev id en ce t o i nt ro du ce at hi s h eari ng ap pe aran ce.”In Bonne r v. Pri ch ar d , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e adopte d, as 2 binding prece dent i n the El eventh Ci rcuit, all decisions of the former F ifth Circuit announce d prior to the close of busine ss on October 1, 1981. 7 Bi lli ngt on v . U nde rw ood, 613 F
. 2d 9 1, 94 ( 5thCi r. 198 0)
. A ga in , t he H ousi ng 2 A uth or ity ’ s not ic e pr ovi de d tha t E rv in’ s Se ct ion 8 re nta l as sis tanc e “ w il l t er m ina te

. . . due to fa ilure to co m

ply w ith Se ct ion 8 re gul at ion s. ” T he not ic e the n go es on t o inf orm E rv in tha t the r eg ula tio n vi ola te d w as “ Cr im e by F am ily Me m be rs . . . D ru grelated ac t i vi t y ” a nd

t hatt he f a c tua l b a si s f

or t he d e t e rm i nat i onw a s “ us e o f i l l e gal dr ug s al es a nd/ or

pur ch ase. ” T his langua ge suf fi ci en tly state d th e re as ons fo r the te rm ina tio n of

E rv in’ s be ne fi ts. A s the dis tr ic t co urt obse rv ed , “ [t ] ha t the not ic e did
n o t s p e ci fy t h e i n d i v i du al al l eg ed t o co m m i tt h e i l l eg al ac t i v i t y, no r t h e e x ac tt i me does not m ake it deficient. ” Indeed, the district court found Er vin’s lac k-of-notice argum ent altogether disin genuou s, given her own testim ony at the hearing that Sharon Rush, the w om an
ar re ste d a t he r ap ar

tm en t onA ugus t 25 , 200 5, ha d a cc om pa nie d he r to a

pr ev iou sly
sc he dul ed he ar ing whi chha d be enc an ce lle d, but w as una ble to at te nd the se co nd he ar ing
. F ro m E rv in’ s tes tim ony , the dis tr ic t cour t foun d that she w as w el l aw ar e of the inc ide nt p ro vid ing the f ac tua l ba sis f

or the te rm ina tio n no tic e. I nde ed , E rv in pr es en te d no e vid en ce to th e co nt rary . O n th is r ec or d, the not ic e w as suf fi ci en tlyWe are u n persua ded by Ervin’s ar g ument that Def endant Car

roll was not an impar

tial 3 decisionmake r. The pertinent regulation provides that the i nformal hearing“may be conduc ted by a per son or per sons desig nated by the PHA, other than a person who made or approve d the dec ision under re v iew or a

subordinate of

this person.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(a )(4) (i). It is undisput ed that Carroll is a per son desig nated by the HousingAuthority

to conduct such he aring s, and that Rache l King , who made the decision under revie w at the hea ring , is not a subordinate to Carr oll, but ins tead repor ts to Helen Hyde. 8 spe ci fi c to e nable E rv in t o pr ep ar e re but ta l e vid en ce to intro duc e at the he ar ing a nd t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i dn o te rr b y r e j e c t i n g t h i s c l a i m. T ur nin g t o Ervi n’ s se co nd arg um en t, she a sse rt s th at the H ousi ng Auth or ity vio la te d th e H U D r eg ula tio ns b y f ai lin g to pr ovi de he r wit h an ad equa te he ar ing
. Mor e spe ci fi ca lly , she cl ai m s the he ar ing vio la te d he r due pr oc es s r igh ts b ec au se the he ar ing of

fi ce r re lie d so le ly

on h ears ay

w ith out a de qua te ind ic iaof

r el ia bil ity a nd i m p ro p er l y s h i ft ed t h e b u rd en o f p ro o f t o h er , ra t h er t h an t h e Ho u s i n g Au t h o ri t y. We 3
rece nt ly hel d t ha t at an in fo r mal a d mi ni st rat iv e p ro ceed in g h el d u nd er t he HUD
re gul at ion s to de te rm ine w he the r a part ic ipant’ s ho usi ng a ssi stanc e shou ld b e te rm ina te d, aloc al hou sin g auth or ity “ ha s th e bur de n of pe rs ua sio n an d m ust ini tia lly pr es en t s uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to es ta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se . ” Ba sc o, 514 F. 3d at 1182
. InBa sc o, w e co nc lud ed

that the lo cal ho usi ng a

uth or ity ha d no t m et

it s burd enof pe rs ua sio n by

sub m itt ing tw o un au the nti ca te d c opi es of tw o po lic e re ports, both of
w hic h c onsi ste d of

he ar say . I d. “ Alt ho ug h th e ru le s of e vid en ce a re not

str ic tly applied in adm inistrative hearings, there ar e due p rocess l im its on the extent to which9

an adverse adm inistrative deter m ination m ay be based on hear say evidence.” Id. ; see al so W ill ia m s v. U
. S. D ep ’ t of T ransp. , 781 F.2d 157 3, 157 8 n. 7 ( 11th C ir
. 198 6) (“ He arsay

is adm issib le in adm inistrative hearings and m ay constitu te substa n tial evidence if found reliable and cre dible.”). He re, accor ding to the summ ary j udgm ent record, the Housing Aut h o ri t y’ s
e v i d e n c e a tt h e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g c o n s i st ed pri m ari ly of Hel en Hyd e ’s t e s t i mo n y, in wh i ch she described the contents of the letter from Captain Fisher stating that illegal narcotics had been found in Er vin’s a partm ent on August 2 5, 2005. In her affidavit in supp ort of sum m ary j udgm ent, Carroll s ay s that she consid ered the letter itself at the hear ing, but the letter wa s not part of the Housing Autho rity ’ s summ ary j udgm en t su

bm iss ion
. Carr oll al so he ar d fr om Be lin daCarw el l, w ho t es tif ie d a bout

“ a gir l” a nd “ re ef

er ” fo und in the fr ont y ar d of Er vin ’ s build ing
. In ad dit ionto the fo re goi ng t es tim ony , Carrol l heard f ro m the H ousi ng Auth or ity ’ s law y er , w ho described her conversations w ith the Birm ingh am Police De partm ent concerning an
arre st and search at Er

vin’s residence on Augus t 25, 2005
. The record on appeal does not cont ain an adm inistrative record, nor any other m aterial r elating to th e inform al he ari ng . Insho rt , the e vid en ce sup portin g th e adve rs e adm ini str at ive de ci sio n w hol ly
cons ist ed of he ar say . A lth oughhe ar say m ay c onst itu te sub stanti al e vid en ce inIn the context of an administrative proc eeding , we judge the reliability and probative forc e 4 of hearsay evidenc e by considering the foll owing fac tors: “‘whether (1) the out- of-c ourt dec lara nt was not biased a

nd had no intere st in the resul t o f t he ca se; (2) the opposing pa rty could have obtained the infor

mation contained in the he arsa y befor e the he aringand could have subpoena ed the decla rant; (3) the information wa s not inconsistent on it s fac e; and (4 ) t he information has been rec og nized by

courts as inhe rently

reliable .’” B asco, 514 F .3d at 1182 (quoting J .A.M. Builder s, I nc. v. Her man, 233 F.3d 1350, 1354 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted)).

10 adm inistrative proceedings , on the pre sent record, we cannot say that the “ factors that assure the underly ing reliability and probative value of t he evidence” n ecessar ily are present. I d. (quo tation m arks and citation om itted). Indeed, the onlyrec ord evidence 4 supp ortin g th e de ci sio n is C arro ll’ s a ff idavit in supp ort of

sum m ar y j udgm en t, in
w hic h she de sc ri be s the he ar ing she co nduc te d on E rv in’ s be ne fi ts. P ut s im ply , the
ev ide nce ca

pable of appe llate r ev ie w in the ins tant c as e ha s le ss r el ia bil ity a nd pr oba tiv e va lue than th e tw o un au the nti ca te d pol ic e re ports w e co nsi de re d inBa sc o. On this record, we m

ust vacate and re m and to the dis trict court, for f urther
co nsi de ratio n, in lig ht of

our de ci sio n inBa sc o. O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d
co nsi der w he the r the “ fa ct or s th at a ssu re the und er ly ing r el ia bil ity a nd p ro ba tiv e
va lu e o f th e ev id en ce” n eces sa ril y are p res en t h ere. VACATED AND REMANDED.