Opinion
No. A06-1734.
Filed September 18, 2007.
Appeal from the District Court, Dakota County, File No. C8-06-13525.
Vladimir A. Barkhudarov, (pro se appellant).
Mary G. Dobbins, Mary G. Dobbins Associates, (for respondents).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
This appeal involves a dispute over the calculation of federal housing-assistance benefits. Vladimir Barkhudarov and his wife Nina Gorokhova administratively appealed their benefit calculation but did not seek a writ of certiorari on the adverse determination. Instead, they sued in conciliation court for the amounts they claimed were improperly excluded. The conciliation court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, and Barkhudarov removed the case to district court. The district court dismissed on jurisdictional and immunity grounds, and Barkhudarov appeals. Because the district court properly dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, we affirm.
FACTS
Vladimir Barkhudarov and Nina Gorokhova receive Section 8 housing benefits that are administered by the Dakota County Community Development Agency. See United States Housing Act of 1937 § 8, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437f (2000) (providing for federally subsidized rental housing). The agency conducted recertifications of Barkhudarov's benefit eligibility in 2004 and 2005. Barkhudarov maintains that the agency improperly calculated the amount of his monthly housing assistance on recertification by withholding a utility allowance and by counting a special dietary allowance as income.
Michele Heinbigner, an agency staff member, met with Barkhudarov in December 2005 to discuss the calculations; and Sarah Rensenbrink, an agency program manager, responded to Barkhudarov's concerns in writing. Barkhudarov was not satisfied with the explanations he received and requested an informal review hearing. A hearing officer conducted a review hearing in January 2006 and upheld the propriety of the benefit calculations.
In March 2006 Barkhudarov sued Rensenbrink and Deborah Haugh, the agency's director of housing assistance, in Dakota County Conciliation Court. Barkhudarov's statement of claim alleged that he had lost $504 as a result of the incorrect decisions about his utility allowance and his special-diet allowance.
Rensenbrink and Haugh moved to dismiss. In a memorandum accompanying their motion, they argued that Barkhudarov's allegations did not constitute a claim for money damages but presented an impermissible collateral challenge to an administrative decision that had not been appealed. The conciliation court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds.
Barkhudarov filed a demand for removal to district court in May 2006. In the district court, Barkhudarov increased his claim for damages to $4,300 to include psychological injuries allegedly caused by negligent and fraudulent actions.
Rensenbrink and Haugh again moved to dismiss Barkhudarov's claim on the same bases asserted for dismissal in the conciliation court proceedings. The district court granted the motion based both on jurisdictional grounds and the common-law doctrine of governmental immunity for discretionary actions in the course of official duties. Barkhudarov now appeals.
DECISION
District courts do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an executive body's discretionary exercise of its powers, unless a statutory exception establishes otherwise. Willis v. County of Sherburne, 555 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Minn. 1996). Instead, the exclusive remedy for challenging these decisions is by writ of certiorari to this court because (1) the separation-of-powers doctrine requires the judiciary to exercise restraint before intruding on executive decision-making; (2) certiorari provides the appropriate deference for discretionary executive actions in contrast to a direct suit in district court that contemplates de novo review; and (3) certiorari protects scarce judicial resources. Tischer v. Hous. Redev. Auth. of Cambridge, 693 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn. 2005).
A community development agency is a part of the executive branch of government. Tischer v. Hous. Redev. Auth. of Cambridge, 675 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.App. 2004), aff'd, 693 N.W.2d (Minn. 2005). When conducting a review hearing of a benefits determination the agency exercises its discretionary powers. Carter v. Olmsted County Hous. Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn.App. 1998). As a result, parties cannot challenge the outcome of a review hearing in district court but must contest the outcome by certiorari to the court of appeals. Tischer, 693 N.W.2d at 429. The party seeking review must request a writ of certiorari within sixty days of receiving notice of the adverse decision. Minn. Stat. § 606.01 (2006).
The Dakota County Community Development Agency held a review hearing in January 2006 to address Vladimir Barkhudarov's claims of error in the agency's benefits calculations. The hearing officer concluded that the agency had correctly calculated the special dietary allowance and the utility allowance in determining the subsidy amount. Under Minnesota law Barkhudarov may challenge that determination by applying to this court for a writ of certiorari within sixty days of receiving notice of the adverse decision. Id. Barkhudarov did not appeal the decision and instead brought an action in conciliation court. When that action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, he removed the case to district court. But Minnesota law does not confer jurisdiction on either the conciliation court or the district court to review administrative agency decisions. Consequently, the district court was correct in its determination that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Barkhudarov's challenge to the computation of his rent subsidy.
We recognize that the recertification computations have a severe effect on Barkhudarov's ability to meet his expenses and that the dismissal based on procedural grounds has fostered a belief on Barkhudarov's part that he has been unfairly denied a full hearing. But Barkhudarov received a hearing on the computation of his housing-assistance benefits. Following that hearing, the hearing officer issued a written statement and explanation of the decision with copies of the applicable regulations. We also recognize that the agency made multiple attempts to explain its actions to Barkhudarov, both in person and in writing, and to provide copies of the rules and regulations. Absent a timely request for a writ of certiorari from the hearing officer's decision, the administrative determination is final, and a litigant may not seek a different result by starting a separate civil action that is essentially an attempt to obtain relief from the administrative decision.