Pro se plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with HUD in 1997 and HUD did not act on the complaint until 2006. The plaintiffs’ judicial complaint alleged harm due to the delay and that HUD failed to provide any redress for the alleged harm. HUD filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied. The court subsequently found that HUD’s conclusion that it was not authorized to impose monetary sanctions was not arbitrary or capricious. Mannarino v. HUD, 2009 WL 918355 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2009).
- Attorney/Advocate Resource Center
- Assisted Housing Preservation
- Public Housing
- Section 3 Program
- Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
- Domestic Violence and Housing
- Foreclosure Crisis
- Language Access to Housing (LEP)
- Reasonable Accommodation for Persons w/ Disabilities
- Utility and Energy Issues
- Low Income Housing Tax Credit
- Re-entry
- Resident Engagement
- Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
- Publications, Trainings, and Webinars
- NHLP Store
- Housing Justice Network
- Help for Tenants, Homeowners, and Homeless
- Support NHLP
- About NHLP
