CURRY v. VANCOUVER HOUSING AUTHORITY (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Taylor Curry appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims in connection with his participation in the Section 8 public housing program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599, 604 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Curry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights in denying him an accommodation or terminating his housing assistance. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (setting forth requirements for procedural due process); see also 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(1)(ix) (allowing for denial or termination of program assistance “[i]f a family has engaged in or threatened abusive or violent behavior toward [Public Housing Agency] personnel”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry’s motion for reconsideration because Curry failed to establish any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ).

AFFIRMED.