Scribd
Upload
119 views3 pages

Pleading Paper Template

The document discusses the failure of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) to notify the plaintiff of their selection from a waitlist for housing assistance following a determination that they were eligible. It argues that SHRA abused its discretion by not providing the required notice, which prevented the plaintiff from receiving the housing benefit. The document cites several cases that establish an agency must provide fair notice of its actions before time limits on filing claims expire, and that reviewing the lawfulness of an earlier action is not time-barred if an agency's current action raises questions about the earlier action. It concludes SHRA committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by failing to perform its duties as prescribed by law.

Uploaded by

nixwishes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
119 views3 pages

Pleading Paper Template

The document discusses the failure of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) to notify the plaintiff of their selection from a waitlist for housing assistance following a determination that they were eligible. It argues that SHRA abused its discretion by not providing the required notice, which prevented the plaintiff from receiving the housing benefit. The document cites several cases that establish an agency must provide fair notice of its actions before time limits on filing claims expire, and that reviewing the lawfulness of an earlier action is not time-barred if an agency's current action raises questions about the earlier action. It concludes SHRA committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by failing to perform its duties as prescribed by law.

Uploaded by

nixwishes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES


2

5 I. SACRAMENTO COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ABUSED IT’S DISCRETION WHEN IF FAILED TO
6
NOTIFY ME OF SELECTION FROM WAITLIST FOLLOWING A DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY MADE BY THE AGENCY.
7

8
TITLE 24 -HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
9
1.Subtitle B Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development
10
1.Chapter IX Public and Indian Housing, Housing and Urban Development
11 1.Part 982 Section 8 Tenant Based Assistance and Housing Choice Voucher Program
1.Subpart G Leasing a unit
12 1.§ 982.302

13 II. § 982.302 ISSUANCE OF VOUCHER; REQUESTING PHA APPROVAL OF ASSISTED TENANCY.

14 (a) When a family is selected, or when a participant family wants to move to another unit, the
PHA issues a voucher to the family. The family may search for a unit.
15
III. AFTER APPLYING BY MEANS OF A SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (SHRA)
16
CONTRACTED HOUSING, SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY AND JOB PLACEMENT PROGRAM FUNDED BY SHRA MORE
17

18 THAN 12 YEARS HAS PASSED SINCE ORIGINAL APPLICATION (T# 0118962) AGENCY USED OWN METHODS OF

19 DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY AND THEREIN SELECTED PLAINTIFF FOR THE CITY HOUSING ASSISTANCE. AGENCY FAILED

20
ENTIRELY TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF SELECTION PREVENTING PLAINTIFF FROM RECEIVING BENEFIT WHICH

21
ELIGIBILITY WAS DETERMINED.
22
Hobbs Act’s “requirement that agencies promptly give notice of their final orders by service or publication”. Notice to
23
applicant should not vary from those affected by actual determination of benefits in the favor of the Plaintiff.
24
AUG. 28, 2020 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGI V. FRA COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT
25
IV. Participant access on the www.https://SHRA.org/resident-portal website creates presumption that a
26
relationship exists between plaintiff and the Agencies program services for housing. In the absence of
27
assistance for housing no relationship between Plaintiff and portal would not be presesnt outside of being a
28
-1
[PLEADING TITLE]
1 resident in a housing program ran by, or funded by Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment agency.. Where

2 participant defined by SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADMINSISTRATIVE PLAN 2023
3
GLOSSARY PAGE G12 P.3DEFINES PARTICIPANT AS
4

5
V. PARTICIPANT-A FAMILY THAT HAS BEEN ADMITTED TO THE PHA’S HOUSING PROGRAMS. THE FAMILY BECOMES
6
A PARTICIPANT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FIRST HAP CONTACT EXECUTED BY THE PHA FOR THE FAMILY
7
(FIRST DAY OF THE INITIAL LEASE TERM.)
8

9 IN ORDER TO BE A PARTICIPANT YOU MUST BE RECEIVING HOUSING ASSISTANCE FROM SHRA BY MEANS OF (AS

10 DEFINED BY AGENCY PAGE 11 OF ABOVENMENTIONED AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN)

11 VI. Admission- is the point when the family becomes a participant in the program. The date used for this purpose
12 is the effective date of the first HAP contract for a family (first day of initial lease term) in the tenant-based
13 program.
14
PETITIONER “FIRST MUST BE PUT ON FAIR NOTICE” OF THE AGENCY’S ENTRY OF ITS ACTION BEFORE THE SIXTY-DAY
15
FILING PERIOD RUNS
16
VII. Aug. 28, 2020 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi v. FRA Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
17
VIII. “to the extent that an agency’s action ‘necessarily raises’ the question of whether an earlier action was lawful,
18
review of the earlier action for lawfulness is not time-barred”
19
IX. MARCH 5, 2010 GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA V. NORTON DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF
20

21 COLUMBIA

22

23

24 PRESUMPTION THAT IS ENTIRELY ARBITRARY AND OPERATES TO DENY A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT IT OR TO PRESENT FACTS

25 PERTINENT TO A DEFENSE IS VOID.

26
CARELLA V. CALIFORNIA, 491 I.S 263 (1989) CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OF THEFT AND EMBEZZLEMENT UPON PROOF OF
27
FAILURE T RETIRM RENTAL VWEHICLE.OR IN THIS CASE OPERATES TO RECEIVE FEDERAL HOUSING BENEFIT, SELECTION FROM
28
-2
[PLEADING TITLE]
1 WAITLIST A MODE OF OPERATING WITHIN AGENCY DISCRETION TO APPROVE OR DENY, IN THIS CASE AN DECISION TO APPROVE

2
BENEFIT THAT INTENTIONALLY PREVENTS PLAINTIFF FROM REMEDIAL COURSE OF ACTION WHICH IS PROVIDED IN DENIAL.

3
WHERE DENIAL PROVIDES REVIEW OF AGENCY DETERMINATION WHERAS SELECTION DETERMINATION ELIMINATES MODE OF
4
RECOURSE ANO COURSE OF ACTION FOR REMEDIAL REVIEW IS PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR HEARING WHERE NOTICE IS
5
REQUIRED WITHOUT REGARD TO DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ACTUAL VOUCHER TO PARTICIPANT?
6

9 "[A] statutory review period permanently limits the time within which a petitioner may claim that an agency action

10 was procedurally defective."

11 Nov. 2, 1999 Indep Comm Bnkr Amer v. FRS Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

12 Petitioner “first must be put on fair notice” of the agency’s entry of its action before the sixty-day filing period runs

13 Aug. 28, 2020 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi v. FRA Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

14 “to the extent that an agency’s action ‘necessarily raises’ the question of whether an earlier action was lawful, review

15 of the earlier action for lawfulness is not time-barred”

16 March 5, 2010 Government of the Province of Manitoba v. Norton District Court, District of Columbia

17 X.

18

19

20

21
California Government Code 1094.5 (b) prejudicial abuse of discretion when agency fails
22
to perform in a manner orescribed by law, decision not supported by findings and findings not supported
23

24 by evidence.

25

26

27

28
-3
[PLEADING TITLE]

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy