24 C.F.R. Part 982." Gladney v. Sureluck Homes, 2013 WL 2182797, *3 (W.D. Mich. May 20, 2013)(citations omitted). Plaintiff Everett, a participant in the federal Section 8 tenant-based housing program when she resided in Harrisburg, filed this §1983 civil rights action to enforce her constitutional rights and rights under the Housing Act against Defendant SHA, which is a PHA, and Defendant Miller (only in his official capacity), who administered the program in Shamokin, where Plaintiff was moving.
See 24 C.F.R. § 982.313 and 24 C.F.R. § 982.453. In Gladney v. Sureluck Homes LLC, No. 1:13-cv-462, 2013 WL 2182797 at *2 (W.D. Mich. May 20, 2013), this Court rejected the proposition that a plaintiff's status as a recipient of housing aid under Section 8 has an implied federal cause of action against the landlord for wrongful eviction. As this Court explained, other courts addressing the issue unanimously hold “that there is no implied private right of action under Section 8”:
When analyzing a Section 8 program claim, the Eighth Circuit has held that “Congress did not intend to create enforceable rights for individual applicants nor to allow private enforcement of the Section 8 program.” Hill v. Grp. Three Hous. Dev. Corp., 799 F.2d 385, 394 (8th Cir. 1986). See also Gladney v. Sureluck Homes LLC, 2013 WL 2182797, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May 20, 2013) (stating that “[t]he mere fact that part of plaintiff's rent was paid under the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher Program does not displace state law, which generally governs the relationship between landlord and tenant, nor does it create a federal claim for allegedly wrongful eviction.”).
In fact, courts that have considered Section 8 of 1437 have almost unanimously held there is no private right of action. See Gladney v. Sureluck Homes, LLC., No. 1:13CV462, 2013 WL 2182797 *3 (W.D. Mich. May 20, 2013) (collecting cases).
By way of background, in 1974, Congress amended the United States Housing Act of 1937 ("USHA") to create what is known as the Section 8 Housing Program. Gladney v. Sureluck Homes LLC, No. 1:13-CV-462, 2013 WL 2182797, at *2 (W.D. Mich. May 20, 2013)(citing 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, et seq.). Section 8 was created for the purpose of "aiding low-income families in obtaining a decent place to live and of promoting economically mixed housing." Id.
does not expressly create any private cause of action for its enforcement); Modica v. Reyna, 2009 WL 2827975, at *9 (E.D.Tex. Sept.2, 2009) (no implied private right of action to sue under Section 8); cf. Harris v. BlueRay Tech. Shareholders, 2010 WL 1254698, at *3 (E.D.Wash. Mar. 25, 2010) (no private right of action against landlord for eviction in violation of Section 8 notice requirements); Green v. Konover Residential Corp., 1997 WL 736528 (D.Conn., Nov.24, 1997) (no private right of action against landlord under Housing Act) (collecting cases); Green v. Konover Residential Corp., 1997 WL 736528, at *9 (D.Conn. Nov. 24, 1997) (no private cause of action under Section 8 or the implementing regulations against a private landlord seeking affirmative money relief). Thus, inasmuch as there is no indication that plaintiff's claims actually arose under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable. Cf. Gladney v. Sureluck Homes, LLC, 2013 WL 2182797 (W.D. Mich. 2013) (plaintiff's claim for wrongful eviction arose under state law and must be litigated in the state courts; mere fact that part of plaintiff's rent was paid under the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher Program did not displace state law, which generally governs relationship between landlord and tenant, nor did it create a federal claim for allegedly wrongful eviction); Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (dismissing tort claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; mere presence of claimed violation of federal statute in state cause of action, in absence of provisions for private cause of action, is insufficiently substantial to confer jurisdiction on federal court). Furthermore, even construed liberally, plaintiff's claims do not provide this Court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.