## Facts

- The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) provides relocation-assistance payments for people displaced by federally funded projects.
- Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania received federal funding for an affordable-housing project and contracted with Homes Build Hope, Inc. (HBH), a private entity, to develop the project and receive/disburse project funds.
- The County was responsible for providing URA relocation assistance to displaced residents, but delegated that function to HBH.
- Cheryl Faylor was displaced from her home because of the project and received a relocation-assistance payment administered through HBH.
- Faylor believed she was entitled to a higher relocation payment and informed HBH that she intended to appeal the amount.
- Under URA implementing regulations, a person appealing a relocation determination is entitled to obtain access to documents relevant to the appeal from the entity that provided the payment.
- Faylor alleged HBH failed to provide her access to those requested documents, impairing her ability to pursue an effective administrative appeal.
- Faylor filed suit asserting multiple federal and state claims, including a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Pennsylvania negligence claim, against HBH and other defendants involved in administering relocation-related functions (including affiliated private entities and individuals).
- Certain private defendants moved to dismiss; the court addressed those motions at the pleadings stage.

## Issues

1. Whether the URA and its implementing regulations can create a protected property interest in relocation benefits and the required review process, sufficient to support a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim under § 1983.
2. Whether a private entity delegated the County’s URA relocation-assistance responsibilities can be treated as a state actor for § 1983 purposes at the pleading stage.
3. Whether allegations that defendants withheld documents required for an appeal plausibly stated a deprivation of procedural due process.
4. Whether Faylor’s other asserted federal and state theories (including equal protection, civil-rights conspiracy, and related claims) stated claims upon which relief could be granted against the moving private defendants.
5. Whether Faylor was entitled to summary judgment or reconsideration of earlier rulings dismissing claims/defendants.

## Decision

- The court treated the private defendants’ dispositive motions as motions for judgment on the pleadings.
- The court granted judgment on the pleadings to the moving private defendants on all claims except:
  - Faylor’s procedural due process claim (Count II), and
  - Faylor’s negligence claim (Count IV).
- The court dismissed the remainder of Faylor’s claims against those moving private defendants.
- The court denied Faylor’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court denied Faylor’s motion for reconsideration of the prior dismissal order.

## Legal Principles

- To plead a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) a protected property interest and (2) deprivation of that interest without constitutionally adequate process.
- A statutory/regulatory benefits scheme may create a protected property interest when it uses mandatory language and limits official discretion, giving eligible persons a claim of entitlement to benefits and required procedures.
- For § 1983 liability, a private party may be treated as a state actor when the complaint plausibly alleges the party performed a governmental function or acted with sufficient connection to, or in concert with, the governmental entity in the challenged conduct.
- On a Rule 12(c) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and dismisses claims that do not plausibly state entitlement to relief.
- Under Pennsylvania law, negligence generally requires allegations of a duty, breach, causation, and damages.
- Reconsideration is reserved for limited circumstances (such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or correction of clear error), and is denied when those grounds are not shown.
- Summary judgment is not granted where material factual disputes remain or where the movant has not shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

In *Faylor v. Szupper*, the Western District of Pennsylvania narrowed a URA-related displacement dispute at the pleadings stage, dismissing most claims against the moving private defendants while allowing Faylor to proceed on a § 1983 procedural due process theory based on alleged denial of access to appeal-related documents required by the URA regulations, as well as on a Pennsylvania negligence claim tied to the defendants’ administration of relocation-assistance responsibilities.


Faylor v. Szupper, 2009 WL 2982646 (2009)