stating, in the context of a vagueness challenge to the eligibility requirements for public housing tenants, that “due process requires that selections among applicants be made in accordance with ‘ascertainable standards,’” and “[i]t hardly need be said that the existence of an absolute and uncontrolled discretion in an agency of government vested with the administration of a vast program, such as public housing, would be an intolerable invitation to abuse”
How later courts described this case
- stating, in the context of a vagueness challenge to the eligibility requirements for public housing tenants, that “due process requires that selections among applicants be made in accordance with ‘ascertainable standards,’” and “[i]t hardly need be said that the existence of an absolute and uncontrolled discretion in an agency of government vested with the administration of a vast program, such as public housing, would be an intolerable invitation to abuse”
- finding that plaintiffs' complaint stated a claim for relief under the Due Process Clause where applicants for public housing under New York's Public Housing Law alleged deficiencies in the admission policies
- stating that “due process requires that selections among applicants be made in accordance with ‘ascertainable standards’ ”
- holding that applicants for public housing entitled to decision-making procedures with ascertainable standards
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent.
The plaintiffs allege that applicants for public housing are not notified as to whether they are eligible, that they must refile their applications every two years and do not get priority because of earlier filing, and that the Housing Authority has not published and posted its regulations regarding selection of tenants. These complaints hardly seem to raise federal constitutional questions. See Chaney v. State Bar of California, 386 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1011 , 88 S.Ct. 1262 , 20 L.Ed.2d 162 (April 8, 1968); Powell v. Workmen’s Comp. Board etc., 327 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1964); Sarelas v. Sheehan, 326 F.2d 490 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 932 , 84 S.Ct. 1334 , 12 L.Ed.2d 296 (1964).
But even if we assume that some constitutional issues are raised, there are no allegations which tend to show that the individual plaintiffs have been denied rights. We should not entertain such a vague, uncertain, abstract and hypothetical complaint. See Birnbaum v. Trussell, 347 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1965).