Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 47696-7-II Published Opinion.pdf

housing lease. And Kimbra does not argue that Housing Kitsap’s lease contains either of the

prohibited provisions.

Because the terms of 24 C.F.R. § 966.6 apply only to Kimbra’s lease and not to RCW

59.12.030(1), we hold that Housing Kitsap did not violate federal law in filing an unlawful

detainer action under RCW 59.12.030(1) without additional notice.

2. Constitutional Claims

Kimbra argues that her eviction without an opportunity to cure the grounds for

terminating her lease violated both her due process and equal protection rights. We disagree.

A PHA is a state actor for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Hous. Auth. v. Saylors, 19 Wn. App. 871, 873, 578 P.2d 76 (1978). Therefore,

Housing Kitsap is subject to constitutional provisions. But Housing Kitsap did not violate

Kimbra’s constitutional rights.

a. Due Process

Kimbra argues that Housing Kitsap violated due process in terminating her lease and

evicting her. “Procedural due process prohibits the State from depriving an individual of

15
             

No. 47696-7-II

protected liberty interests without appropriate procedural safeguards. At its core, procedural due

process is a right to be meaningfully heard.” In re Det. of Johnson, 179 Wn. App. 579, 587-88,

322 P.3d 22 (citation omitted), review denied, 181 Wn.2d 1005 (2014). Consistent with due

process requirements, a PHA must adhere to “elementary standards of fairness” before evicting

public housing tenants, including notice and a full adversary hearing. Saylors, 19 Wn. App. at

873. These standards of fairness include complying with federal regulations and a PHA’s own

grievance procedures. Bin, 163 Wn. App. at 371.