UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE



Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT I.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:10-cv NBF Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-SER Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 0:13-cv WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2013 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

Fraud - Trading Commodity Futures

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:

Case 1:14-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case5:15-cv HRL Document1 Filed08/12/15 Page1 of 10

COMPLAINT. 1. This action arises under Article I, 2, 7, 10 and 12 of the Rhode Island

INTRODUCTION. States Constitution and 42 U.S.C against the State of New Jersey, New Jersey s

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

Case 3:06-cv MJR-DGW Document 526 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #13631 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 2:14-cv DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

CONSENT ORDER (As to Respondents North America Marketing, LLC and TM Multimedia Marketing, LLC)

Case 1:06-cv LAK Document 127 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 11

COMPLAINT. Now come Plaintiffs, personal care attendants, consumers, surrogates,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 9 : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY. No.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Richard Hanley and : Civil Action No. 04- Susan Hanley : v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:02-cv TS Document 602 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MARC D. LAVIK, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. PC 11- : DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, : STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, : COMPLAINT

Case 6:13 cv Document 1 Filed 10/03/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Complaint. Credit Extension Uniformity Act 73 P.S. 2270, et seq.

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,

JOHN MURRAY ( Murray ), for his Complaint in this action against Defendant, Crystex Composites LLC ( Crystex ), alleges as follows:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 3:10-cv DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:15-cv LAB-BLM Document 1 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1

Case 1:14-cv FDS Document 64 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

How To File A Lawsuit Against A Corporation In California

Trademark Infringement Complaint. No. Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys,, I. PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:13-cv JBA Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act

Case 1:15-cv JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

at Foreclosure Act: Keeping Tenants in the Loop and in Their Homes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Complaint

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC

HON. GEORGE E. PATAKI, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, et al.,

Case 3:08-cv JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA CASE No../}nAMA QJ VI.SIIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant.

NEW YORK CITY FALSE CLAIMS ACT Administrative Code through *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

Regular Session, ACT No To amend and reenact R.S. 9:3573.1, (A), (1), (8), (9) and (10), ,

UPDATED. OIG Guidelines for Evaluating State False Claims Acts

A Bill Regular Session, 2015 SENATE BILL 830

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

Case 3:08-cv JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MINNESOTA FALSE CLAIMS ACT. Subdivision 1. Scope. --For purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section have the meanings given them.

Representing Whistleblowers Nationwide

CIVIL DICTRICT COURT PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA

4:15-cv RBH Date Filed 01/29/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10

How To Settle A Class Action Lawsuit Against Jimmy Johns

FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9:10-cv MBS Date Filed 07/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA INTRODUCTION

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff State of North Carolina, by and through its Attorney General, brings this action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 1:14-cv PBS Document 1 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 2:11-cv GMS Document 1 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 11

Transcription:

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RICHARD MILLER, of the ) Town of Searsport, County of ) Waldo, State of Maine, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) DALE MCCORMICK in her official capacity ) as Director and chief executive officer for the ) Civil Action No. Maine State Housing Authority, ) MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY, ) a public body corporate and politic and ) instrumentality of the State of Maine, and ) PENQUIS COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM,) a non-profit corporation conducting ) business in the State of Maine, ) Defendants ) COMPLAINT DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as a result of Defendants ' refusal to follow a decision by an Administrative Hearing Officer deciding that Plaintiff " s Section 8 Housing Choice Program voucher should not be terminated. Specifically, Defendants' have ignored the Administrative Hearing Officer' s ruling that Plaintiff's voucher should not be terminated, and they have ceased payment of their subsidy for Plaintiffs mortgage. 2. Plaintiff states his cause of action against Defendants pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1437f et. seq., and 24 C.F.R. 982 et. seq. 1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343. 4. Declaratory relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. 5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391. III. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Richard Miller resides in Searsport, Waldo County, Maine, and was a recipient of a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program subsidy until it was terminated by Defendants in June 2007. 7. Defendant Maine State Housing Authority (hereinafter "MSHA") is a public body corporate and politic and an instrumentality of the State, established under 30-A M.R.S.A. 4722 et. seq., which promotes housing opportunities for low income people including the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (hereinafter "Section 8 Housing Voucher Program") and its subsidiary Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program (hereinafter "Section 8 Homeownership Option"). 8. Defendant Dale McCormick is the Director of MSHA and its chief executive officer with ultimate managerial responsibility for its actions. 9. Penquis Community Action Program (hereinafter "Penquis CAP") is a non-profit corporation in the State of Maine and an agent of MSHA administering the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program on behalf of MSHA in Penobscot and Waldo counties. IV. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 10. The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, enacted as Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, is codified at 42 U.S.C. 1437 The United States Department of 2

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has promulgated regulations implementing this program at 24 C.F.R. Part 982. 11. The Section 8 Housing Voucher Program is generally designed to help low-income individuals and families by providing rent subsidies that enable them to rent existing units in the private rental housing market. 12. The Section 8 Housing Voucher Program includes a Section 8 Homeownership Option at 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(15). 13. The Section 8 Homeownership Option helps low-income individuals and families become homeowners by providing mortgage subsidies that enable them to purchase a home. 14. Once an individual or a family has been accepted into the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program, they remain eligible for the program unless there are grounds for termination pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 982.552 and 982.553, as modified by 24 C.F.R. 982.638 for purposes of the Section 8 Homeownership Option. 15. When a Public Housing Authority (hereinafter "PHA") proposes to terminate assistance for a participant, the participant is entitled to written notice and an informal hearing pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 982.555. 16. The Administrative Hearing Officer must issue a written decision, stating briefly the reasons for the decision pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 982.555(e)(6). 17. The PHA is bound by the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer except under the limited exceptions described in 24 C.F.R. 982.555(f). 18. None of the limited exceptions described in 24 C.F.R. 982.555(f) are applicable. 19. As the body administering the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program in Maine, MSHA is required by 24 C.F.R. 982.54 to promulgate, file with HUD, and follow an 3

administrative plan establishing local policies for the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program, including the Section 8 Homeownership Option, and as a result MSHA has promulgated the Administrative Plan for Section 8 Voucher, Certificate and Moderate Rehab Programs. V. STATEMENT OF FACTS 20. Plaintiff Richard Miller is a single disabled individual living in Searsport, Maine. 21. Plaintiff's sole source of income is Social Security Disability of $904 a month. 22. In 2001, Plaintiff applied for and was accepted into the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program in Massachusetts. 23. Plaintiff moved to Maine in July 2005 and applied to transfer or "port" his voucher to Maine, and Penquis CAP, as agent for MSHA, accepted him as a Section 8 Housing Voucher Program participant. 24. Plaintiff subsequently applied through Penquis CAP for participation in the Section 8 Home Ownership Option. 25. In the summer of 2006, Penquis CAP determined that Plaintiff was eligible for the Section 8 Home Ownership Option and placed him on a waiting list for home ownership in a development in Searsport being built for low to moderate income first-time home owners. 26. In October 2006, Plaintiff moved to a home in said development and began receiving a Section 8 Home Ownership Option subsidy towards his mortgage through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Rural Housing). 27. In December 2006, Penquis CAP notified Plaintiff that his Section 8 Home Ownership Option subsidy would be terminated because he had allegedly committed fraud or other corrupt criminal act by failing to disclose that he was subject to registration in the State sex 4

offender registry and because he had violated his obligation not to engage in other criminal activity that threatens the health or safety of others by failing to register as a sex offender. 28. Pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 982.555, Plaintiff appealed the termination of his subsidy and, after hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer issued a decision on January 30, 2007, setting aside the agency's decision and determining that Plaintiff's subsidy was not terminated. 29. On February 9, 2007, Penquis CAP again notified Plaintiff that his benefits under the Section 8 Home Ownership Option would be terminated because he had committed "violent criminal activity, to wit: Child Molestation in the first degree between the dates of July 1, 1995 and March 26, 1996", which was alleged to be a violation of 24 C.F.R. 982-551 - 982.553. 30. Again pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 982.555, Plaintiff appealed this termination and, after hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer issued a decision on May 29, 2007, once again setting aside the agency's decision and determining that Plaintiff's subsidy was not terminated. 31. On June 6, 2007, MSHA, through counsel, notified Plaintiff that in his opinion Defendants were not bound by the January 30 and May 29 decisions because they were contrary to HUD regulations or requirements or otherwise contrary to federal and state law, although no specific grounds were cited. 32. MSHA ceased making payments on Plaintiff's Section 8 Home Ownership Option subsidy and has not made any payments since May 2007. 33. Pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 982.555(f), Defendants must abide by the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision unless "the PHA is not required to provide an opportunity for an informal hearing under this section," if the decision "otherwise exceeds the authority of the person conducting the hearing under the PHA hearing procedures," or if the decision is "contrary to HUD regulations or requirements, or otherwise contrary to federal, State, or local law." 5

34. The Defendants' refusal to honor the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, and their termination of the Plaintiff's Section 8 Home Ownership Option benefits, violate his rights pursuant to federal law. 35. Defendants acted under color of state law at all times relevant to this action. VI. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNTI 36. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35 of his Complaint. 37. Defendants ' actions in terminating Plaintiff' s Section 8 Home Ownership Option benefits despite the hearing officer's ruling in Plaintiff' s favor exceeded their statutory authority and violated Plaintiff' s rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1437 et. seq. and applicable federal regulations. 38. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for deprivation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. COUNT II 39. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I - 38 of his Complaint. 40. Defendants' actions in refusing to pay Plaintiff' s Section 8 Home Ownership Option subsidy despite a ruling that his Section 8 should not be terminated is a violation of Plaintiff' s due process rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 41. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for deprivation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court: 1. Declare the Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights pursuant to the causes of action set forth above. 2. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering Defendants to reinstate the Plaintiff to the Section 8 Home Ownership Option and to pay Plaintiffs Section 8 Home Ownership Option benefits effective immediately. 3. Order Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff for the money he spent out of pocket to cover that portion of his mortgage payments that would have been paid by his Section 8 Home Ownership Option subsidy and that Defendant failed and refused to pay. 4. Grant any and all other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, Dated: January 28, 2008 Plaintiff Richard Miller, by his attorney, /s/ Judson-Este-Kendall Judson Esty-Kendall, Esq. Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc. 61 Main St., Rm. 41 Bangor, ME 04401 (207) 942-8241 jesty-kendall@ptla.org Bar Number 566 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 7