§ 1437f

Citation: § 1437f
Parent Document: Nozzi v. Housing Authority, 806 F.3d 1178 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3158630/nozzi-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,196 chars

As an initial matter, the Housing Authority claims that the
plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. It is incorrect. To
establish standing, plaintiffs must establish that they have:
(1) an injury in fact, (2) that is “fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant” and (3) that is “likely to
be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (quotation marks
omitted). Here, the plaintiffs alleged that the Housing
Authority decreased the amount of their Section 8 benefits
and therefore increased the amount they had to pay in rent
without adhering to the protections required by due process
and by Voucher Program regulations. As the Supreme Court
has held, “[w]hen the suit is one challenging the legality of
government action or inaction” and “the plaintiff is himself
an object of the action . . . there is ordinarily little question
that the action or inaction has caused him injury[.]” Id. at
561–62. Plaintiffs request compensatory damages, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief, for uncompensated injuries
that were ongoing when they filed their complaint. As a
result, they met all three standing requirements.

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text