United States Seventh Circuit

In plaintiff's suit against defendant for denying his application for Section 8 housing in its building, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) under Eidson v. Pierce, 745 F.2d 453 (7th. Cir. 1984), Section 8 housing applicants do not have a protected right that entitles them to some form of due process when they are rejected from a specific Section 8 housing unit, and because Eidson was a well-reasoned opinion, and no significant changes in law have occurred between when that case was decided and now, plaintiff's argument that it should be overturned is rejected; and 2) district court properly rejected plaintiff's claim that he is entitled to bring suit as a third-party beneficiary of a contract entered into between defendant and its funding agencies, such as HUD.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/10/2010
• Published 05/10/2010

Judges

• PER CURIAM., Before POSNER, WILLIAMS, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Kent L. Hull, Attorney, South Bend, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michael P. Palmer, Attorney, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, IN, Andrew B. Miller, Attorney, Logansport, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.