Opinion ID: 442820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: EIDSON v. PIERCE

Text: 3 Plaintiff Kathy Eidson brought a putative class action suit against the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (the Secretary), Henderson Court Associates and Cardinal Management Company, Inc. (Cardinal). Henderson Court Associates is a partnership which owns the Henderson Court Apartments (Henderson Court) located in Bloomington, Indiana, and which receives federal housing assistance payments under the Section 8 new construction subprogram regulated under 24 C.F.R. Part 880. Cardinal is an Indiana corporation managing Henderson Court Apartments under contract with the owner. 4 Eidson is unemployed and has three children. Her complaint states that her only source of income is the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, and that she and her children are eligible to receive Section 8 housing benefits. Eidson alleges that in 1979 she applied for an apartment in Henderson Court, and that in 1981 Henderson Court denied her application in a letter stating: 5 Based on the information I received from your previous landlords I will not have an apartment for you, and your application will be taken off file. If you have any questions please contact the office. 6 Plaintiff thereafter brought this suit claiming that the defendants violated her due process rights under the fifth amendment by allegedly failing to maintain and apply uniform, ascertainable standards for the selection of tenants (First Claim), to provide adequate and specific written reasons for denial of admission (Second Claim) and to provide an opportunity for an informal hearing before an impartial hearing officer for individuals and families who have been denied admission (Third Claim). The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from enforcing existing Section 8 tenant selection policies as well as an injunction requiring the Secretary to develop a proposal to remedy the alleged failures. 7 The private defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in securing an apartment at Henderson Court. Later, the Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under the fifth amendment, contending that (1) plaintiff did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to an apartment at Henderson Court and (2) the actions of the private defendants were not fairly attributable to the Secretary under the fifth amendment. Plaintiff, in turn, moved for certification of a class. 8 The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. Focusing initially on the applicable regulations, the court ruled that a private owner, unlike a public housing authority, is under no regulatory obligation to provide an informal hearing or an impartial review to an applicant who has been denied tenancy. On the constitutional issue, the district court concluded that plaintiff as a potential tenant did not have a property interest in a Section 8 subsidized apartment in Henderson Court. 9