Kenneth Curry v. Vancouver Housing Authority ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 21 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KENNETH TAYLOR CURRY,                           No.    18-35467
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05784-RBL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    VANCOUVER HOUSING AUTHORITY;
    ROY JOHNSON, in his official & private
    capacity,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 19, 2019**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Kenneth Taylor Curry appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging claims in connection with his
    participation in the Section 8 public housing program. We have jurisdiction under
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Shelley v. Geren, 
    666 F.3d 599
    , 604 (9th
    Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Curry failed
    to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due
    process rights in denying him an accommodation or terminating his housing
    assistance. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 
    424 U.S. 319
    , 333-35 (1976) (setting forth
    requirements for procedural due process); see also 
    24 C.F.R. § 982.552
    (c)(1)(ix)
    (allowing for denial or termination of program assistance “[i]f a family has
    engaged in or threatened abusive or violent behavior toward [Public Housing
    Agency] personnel”).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry’s motion for
    reconsideration because Curry failed to establish any grounds for relief. See Sch.
    Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262-63 (9th Cir.
    1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of
    Civil Procedure 59(e)).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    18-35467
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-35467

Filed Date: 2/21/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021