[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-12696 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 28, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-60588-CV-JIC
JUDY COPELAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
et al.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 28, 2009)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Judy Copeland appeals pro se the dismissal of her complaint against the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5 U.S.C. § 704.
The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision of the
Department that a public housing authority took “appropriate actions” when it
terminated Copeland’s benefits under Section 8 of the Housing Choice Voucher
Program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(a). We affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing Copeland’s complaint. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act, a district court may not review the decision of an
agency if “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 701(a)(2). A decision is “committed to agency discretion” and barred from
judicial review if the governing statute “is drawn so that a court would have no
meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 1655 (1985). The
Supreme Court has stated that there is no “procedure by which tenants c[an]
complain to [the Department] about the alleged failures of [public housing
authorities] to abide by . . . HUD regulations.” Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Hous.
Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 426, 107 S. Ct. 766, 772 (1987). Because the district court
had no meaningful standard to apply, the decision of the Department was immune
from review.
2
The dismissal of Copeland’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
3