LILLIE BELLE HOLLOWAY, AND GLORIA HODGE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HALEY SOFGE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a complaint alleging deprivation of due process in public housing tenant regulations, under notice pleading, states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, vesting jurisdiction in the federal court.
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging deprivation of due process in the administration of tenant regulations in public housing. The trial court viewed …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case was dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint claims deprivation of due process of law in the administration of tenant regulations in public housing. The court viewed the matter as a breach of contract suit. We view it as involving the procedures used in the treatment of tenants in public housing and reverse.
Subject matter jurisdiction in such a proceeding depends upon the issue or issues sought to be asserted and the facts alleged. The complaint, under notice pleading, alleges a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Jurisdiction, in that event, is premised on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3). Thus, a hearing is indicated on the allegations of the complaint. This court can then consider the propriety of a class action, and if proper, the class involved. The issues asserted can be considered in light of the actual facts developed. Cf. Quevedo v. Collins, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F. 2d 796; Lewis v. Housing Authority of City of Talladega, Ala., 5 Cir., 1968, 397 F. 2d 178; and Randell v. Newark Housing Authority, 3 Cir., 1967, 384 F. 2d 151.
No question is presented here as to the type or scope of relief that may be forthcoming in the event a cause of action is found to exist. These are matters for the district court and this is also true as to supervening regulations which may now be applicable. Cf. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of City of Durham, 1969, 393 U.S. 268, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Escalera v. NEW York City Hous. Auth., 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Thorpe v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1969)
- Lessie Randell v. Newark Hous. Auth. & Louis Danzig, 384 F.2d 151 (3d Cir. 1967)
- Everline Lewis and Margaret Truss v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Talladega, 397 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Mrs. Dominga Quevedo v. Mr. William W. Collins, 414 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1969)