McQuade

McQuade v. King County Housing Authority

Good Law
203 F. App'x 823
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 25, 2006No. 05-35037California331 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Robert McQuade and Dixie Borchers appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of King County Housing Authority and King County, Washington. McQuade and Borchers filed this action pro se seeking damages for being refused the single seat that is set aside for a resident of low-income housing on the *824 Board of King County Housing Authority. They rely on Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1701u. The Act recites Congress’s finding that “employment and other economic opportunities generated by projects and activities that receive Federal housing and community development assistance offer an effective means of empowering low — and very low-income persons, particularly ... recipients of government assistance for housing.” 12 U.S.C. § 1701u(a)(3). While plaintiffs do not contend that this statute directly required the Housing Authority to appoint one of them to the seat, they do contend that the refusal to do so was discrimination in violation of a HUD regulation promulgated pursuant to Section 3. See 24 C.F.R. § 135.76 (1).

Federal causes of action must be expressly provided for by Congress. See Alexander v. Sandoval,…

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.