BOBBY TUCKER V. SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, No. 14-36096 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 02 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BOBBY TUCKER; Z.T., a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 14-36096 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01566-BAT v. MEMORANDUM* SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted October 25, 2016*** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Bobby Tucker and his minor child, Z.T., appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims relating * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** to their project-based Section 8 housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because appellants failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they were entitled to a grievance procedure and to remain on the housing wait list. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(13)(J) (family retains place on waiting list only where family “rejects an offer of project-based assistance”); Moore v. Nw. Fabricators, Inc., 314 P.2d 941, 942 (Wash. 1957) (“Abandonment, as applied to leases, involves an absolute relinquishment of premises by a tenant, consisting of act or omission and an intent to abandon.”); 24 C.F.R. § 983.256(f)(3)(ii) (“The term of the lease terminates if . . . [t]he tenant terminates the lease”); 24 C.F.R. § 983.261(d) (“If the family terminates the assisted lease before the end of one year, the family relinquishes the opportunity for continued tenant-based assistance.”). We do not consider new evidence introduced on appeal. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988). Appellants’ requests for appointment of counsel are denied. Appellants’ motion to expedite the case, filed on May 23, 2016, is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 14-36096

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.