Judy Copeland v. U.S. Dept. of HUD, No. 09-12696 (11th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 09-12696 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCTOBER 28, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-60588-CV-JIC JUDY COPELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (October 28, 2009) Before WILSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Judy Copeland appeals pro se the dismissal of her complaint against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5 U.S.C. § 704. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision of the Department that a public housing authority took appropriate actions when it terminated Copeland s benefits under Section 8 of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(a). We affirm. The district court did not err by dismissing Copeland s complaint. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a district court may not review the decision of an agency if agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). A decision is committed to agency discretion and barred from judicial review if the governing statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency s exercise of discretion. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 1655 (1985). The Supreme Court has stated that there is no procedure by which tenants c[an] complain to [the Department] about the alleged failures of [public housing authorities] to abide by . . . HUD regulations. Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 426, 107 S. Ct. 766, 772 (1987). Because the district court had no meaningful standard to apply, the decision of the Department was immune from review. 2 The dismissal of Copeland s complaint is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
