Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case at hand, the appellants, acting pro se, challenged the decision of the district court which granted summary judgment in favor of King County Housing Authority and King County, Washington. The appellants sought damages on the grounds of alleged discrimination, having been denied a designated seat for low-income housing residents on the Board of the King County Housing Authority. They based their claims on Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act, which promotes employment opportunities for low-income individuals receiving housing assistance. However, the court found that no private right of action exists under Section 3, as per the precedent set by Alexander v. Sandoval, since board positions do not constitute 'training and employment opportunities.' Furthermore, the district court denied their motions for a new trial under Rules 59 and 60, due to the lack of newly discovered evidence. The appellants also failed to present substantial arguments regarding their state law claims. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, noting that the disposition is not intended for publication and is limited in its citation in future cases per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motions for New Trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court denied the appellants' motions for a new trial because the motions were not supported by newly discovered evidence.
Reasoning: Additionally, the district court denied motions for a new trial under Rules 59 and 60, as those motions were not supported by newly discovered evidence.
Federal Cause of Action under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that no private right of action exists under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act, as board positions do not qualify as 'training and employment opportunities' under the statute.
Reasoning: The court found that federal causes of action must be explicitly established by Congress, citing Alexander v. Sandoval, and concluded that no private right of action exists under Section 3, as board positions do not qualify as 'training and employment opportunities' under the statute.
Non-Publication and Citation of Judicial Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the disposition of this case is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the district court’s ruling, stating that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
State Law Claims Dismissalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants did not present compelling arguments to overturn the dismissal of their state law claims, resulting in the affirmation of the district court's ruling.
Reasoning: The appellants did not present compelling arguments to overturn the dismissal of their state law claims.