Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8625424
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
McQuade v. King County Housing Authority
No. 8625424 · Decided October 25, 2006
No. 8625424·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 25, 2006
Citation
No. 8625424
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM * Robert McQuade and Dixie Borchers appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of King County Housing Authority and King County, Washington. McQuade and Borchers filed this action pro se seeking damages for being refused the single seat that is set aside for a resident of low-income housing on the *824 Board of King County Housing Authority. They rely on Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1701u. The Act recites Congress’s finding that “employment and other economic opportunities generated by projects and activities that receive Federal housing and community development assistance offer an effective means of empowering low — and very low-income persons, particularly ... recipients of government assistance for housing.” 12 U.S.C. § 1701u(a)(3). While plaintiffs do not contend that this statute directly required the Housing Authority to appoint one of them to the seat, they do contend that the refusal to do so was discrimination in violation of a HUD regulation promulgated pursuant to Section 3. See 24 C.F.R. § 135.76 (1). Federal causes of action must be expressly provided for by Congress. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 , 121 S.Ct. 1511 , 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). The district court correctly granted judgment for the defendants. However, no private cause of action exists under Section 3 because positions on the board of a public housing authority are not “training and employment opportunities generated by development assistance.” 12 U.S.C. § 1701u(e)(l)(A). The district court also properly denied the motions for new trial under Rules 59 and 60 as these motions were not based upon any newly discovered evidence in existence at the time of the district court’s original ruling. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, 60(b)(2). Appellants present no reasoned argument for reversing the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM * Robert McQuade and Dixie Borchers appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of King County Housing Authority and King County, Washington.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM * Robert McQuade and Dixie Borchers appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of King County Housing Authority and King County, Washington.
02McQuade and Borchers filed this action pro se seeking damages for being refused the single seat that is set aside for a resident of low-income housing on the *824 Board of King County Housing Authority.
03They rely on Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act, codified at 12 U.S.C.
04The Act recites Congress’s finding that “employment and other economic opportunities generated by projects and activities that receive Federal housing and community development assistance offer an effective means of empowering low — and ver
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM * Robert McQuade and Dixie Borchers appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of King County Housing Authority and King County, Washington.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for McQuade v. King County Housing Authority in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 25, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8625424 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.