KENNETH CURRY V. VANCOUVER HOUSING AUTHORITY, No. 18-35467 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENNETH TAYLOR CURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35467 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

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.