Sharay Davis v. Independence Housing Authority (IHA) and Geri Nickell

Summary

The court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion in a pro se action concerning termination from the Housing Choice Voucher Program. It dismisses the claims against the Independence Housing Authority lacking sufficient Monell allegations, the First Amendment retaliation claim, and the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f and HUD regulations. It allows the procedural due process claim against the individual defendant, Geri Nickell, to proceed because the plaintiff plausibly alleged termination without a required hearing and qualified immunity could not be resolved at this stage.

Holdings

1. Claims against Nickell in her official capacity were duplicative of claims against IHA because an official-capacity action is treated as an action against the governmental entity.
2. Davis failed to state a Monell claim against IHA because she alleged only her own termination and did not plausibly identify an official policy, custom, or widespread practice that caused the alleged constitutional violation.
3. Davis plausibly stated a procedural due process claim and Nickell was not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
4. The First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed, and Nickell was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established right supported a claim based on refusing to sign a form required by a public housing agency.
5. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f and its implementing HUD regulations did not create privately enforceable rights that Davis could vindicate through § 1983.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims against Nickell in her official capacity were duplicative of claims against IHA.
2. Whether Davis plausibly alleged Monell liability against IHA based on the alleged failure to provide a pretermination hearing.
3. Whether Davis plausibly alleged a procedural due process claim against Nickell in her individual capacity and whether qualified immunity barred that claim at the pleading stage.
4. Whether refusing to sign IHA's additional information-release form constituted protected activity for a First Amendment retaliation claim and whether Nickell was entitled to qualified immunity.
5. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1437f or HUD regulations created privately enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Disposition

other