Margaret Ressler, Plaintiffs/appellees/cross-Appellants v. Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Defendants/appellants/cross-Appellees

Good Law
66 A.L.R. Fed. 703·692 F.2d 1212·1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24387
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 2, 198281-3294, 81-3404California4,391 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

This is a class action against the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the owners of certain subsidized housing in Alaska. Plaintiffs are applicants and potential applicants for HUD rent subsidies under the Section 8 Set-Aside Program, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f (1978 & Supp. 1982), of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (“the Section 8 program”). Plaintiffs allege that they were denied due process and equal protection by the manner in which the owners of a subsidized apartment complex processed their applications for rent subsidies.

These are cross appeals from two orders of the district court. In Appeal No. 3294, HUD appeals the court’s ruling that applicants for Section 8 benefits must be afforded Fifth Amendment due process protection in the application ■ and selection process. HUD also argues that, in the event this court determines that due process is required, the procedures ordered by the court should be modified in several respects. In Appeal No. 3404, Plaintiffs appeal both the application and selection procedures ordered by the district court and the court’s ruling that HUD is not required to ensure that project owners rent to Section 8

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.