FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 26 2009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
MARKA. WARD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09 1617
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING )
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration ofplaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the
complaint.
Plaintiff filed a housing discrimination complaint with the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") alleging that his former landlord and others
discriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"),
see 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. CompI. ~ 3. HUD referred the matter to the North Carolina Human
Relations Commission ("NCHRC") for investigation, id., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3610(f).
According to plaintiff, the NCHRC intentionally omitted evidence plaintiff provided and
otherwise failed to conduct a proper investigation, and HUD concurred with the NCHRC's
conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the housing providers engaged
in unlawful discriminatory housing practices. Id. ~~ 4-6.
In this action, plaintiff "requests that this Court review [HUD's] May 18, 2009 decision"
1
under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), see 5 U.S.c. § 701 et seq. Id. ~ 10. Further,
he asks this Court to declare HUD's decision invalid and to remand the matter to HUD for
additional investigation. Id. at 6 (Prayer). The Court will dismiss this action under 28 U.S.c. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
"[T]he FHA creates no explicit cause of action" where, as here, the Secretary of HUD
declines to issue a charge of discrimination. Godwin v. Sec y of Housing and Urban Devel., 356
F. 3d 310,312 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Nor does the FHA "implicitly confer[] such a right
of action against the Secretary." Id. Moreover, the AP A provides for judicial review of an
agency action if it is "made reviewable by statute," or ifthere was a "final agency action for
which there is no other adequate remedy in a court." 5 U.S.C. § 704. Section 813 of the FHA,
see 42 U.S.C. § 3613, "provides an 'other adequate remedy in a court'" in the form of a civil
action filed by the aggrieved person, thus "barring judicial review under the AP A." Turner v.
Sec y of the United States Dep 't of Housing & Urban Devel., 449 F.3d 536, 540 (3d Cir. 2006),
cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1117 (2007); Godwin, 356 F.3d at 312 (concluding that "the private right
of action authorized by [42 U.S.C. § 3613] constitutes an adequate alternative remedy, rendering
judicial review unavailable under the AP A"); Marinoff v. United States Dep 't of Housing &
Urban Devel., 892 F. Supp. 493, 497 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (adopting Magistrate Report and
Recommendation dismissing complaint alleging that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") failed to properly investigate plaintiffs allegations of discrimination and
retaliation by the housing project in which she lives for failure to state a claim on the ground that
"plaintiff has a reasonable alternative [42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(2)] and therefore review under APA
is not available"), aff'd, 78 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
2
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this
same date.
United States District Judge
DATE: ~11lu1
3