## Facts

- Sara Baldwin applied to the Housing Authority of the City of Camden (HACC) for a federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher.
- HACC denied her application based on “poor credit history,” treating creditworthiness as a disqualifying eligibility criterion.
- Baldwin requested an informal hearing to challenge the denial.
- At the hearing, Baldwin sought to present evidence of roughly seven years of satisfactory rent-payment history to rebut the negative implications of her credit report, which included non-rental debts.
- The hearing officer refused to consider Baldwin’s rental-history evidence and upheld the denial based solely on the credit history.
- Baldwin filed a federal civil-rights action alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and federal housing statutes and regulations, later treated as claims proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); individual defendants also sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether federal statutes and HUD regulations permit a public housing authority to deny Section 8 voucher eligibility based on an applicant’s generalized “creditworthiness.”
2. Whether a Section 8 voucher applicant alleged a protected property interest sufficient to invoke procedural due process protections.
3. Whether an informal hearing is constitutionally and regulatorily adequate when the applicant is denied a meaningful chance to present relevant rebuttal evidence.
4. Whether individual housing authority officials are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged due process violations arising from the denial and hearing procedures.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.
- The court granted Baldwin leave to amend to plead expressly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and ordered an amended complaint within 30 days.
- The court held that Baldwin plausibly alleged that HACC’s reliance on creditworthiness and the manner of the informal hearing could violate federal law and procedural due process.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff states a procedural due process claim by plausibly alleging (1) a protected property interest and (2) deprivation of that interest without constitutionally sufficient procedures.
- Statutes and regulations governing public benefits can create a legitimate claim of entitlement when they meaningfully constrain agency discretion.
- Section 8 program administration is governed by federal statutes and HUD regulations; local housing authorities have discretion only within that regulatory framework.
- At the pleading stage, an applicant may proceed where regulations do not clearly authorize a categorical denial practice (such as denial based solely on generalized credit history unrelated to rental payment ability).
- An informal hearing must provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including an opportunity to present relevant evidence to rebut the stated basis for denial.
- Qualified immunity may be denied at an early stage where alleged conduct, if proven, would violate clearly established procedural due process requirements; it may be granted for officials whose involvement is insufficient or whose conduct is not clearly unlawful under established law.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a Section 8 applicant to proceed on claims that a housing authority improperly denied voucher eligibility based on credit history and conducted an informal hearing that excluded relevant rebuttal evidence, while granting qualified immunity to some officials and allowing the complaint to be amended to plead expressly under § 1983.


Baldwin v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Camden, 278 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D.N.J. 2003)