# James Holmes v. New York City Housing Authority

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · July 18, 1968 · 398 F.2d 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453826

## Case

- **Full name:** James HOLMES Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** July 18, 1968
- **Citations:** 398 F.2d 262; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6046
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hays
- **Judges:** Hays, Anderson, Feinberg
- **Cited by:** 207 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453826

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 a…
- 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
- holding that a state violates due process if it allocates public housing without any standards

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453826. Public record. Not legal advice.