LANE et al v. FORT WALTON BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY et al

Filing 38

ORDER The Hearing Officers determination is remanded to the Dft for resolution consistent with 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(6).The Dft shall, not later than September 28, 2011, file a copy of the Hearing Officers amended determinat ion. Pla shall, within fourteen days after that filing, respond & amend the complaint as necessary. (Dft's file copy of hearing by 9/28/2011. Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 10/12/2011).) Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 9/14/2011. (sea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SYLVESTER B. LANE and
MARY LANE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO. 3-11-cv-374/RS-CJK

FORT WALTON BEACH HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
On Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion, I found that the Hearing Officer’s
findings were inadequate and did not comply with the requirements of 24 C.F.R. §
982.555(e)(6). Specifically, the Hearing Officer’s determination did not contain a
sufficient “statement of the reasons for the decision” setting forth the “factual
determinations . . . based on the preponderance of evidence.”
I directed the parties to file a response whether this court should remand to the
agency so that the Hearing Officer may explain his reasoning for the termination of
Plaintiffs’ benefits. (See Doc. 31). I now consider Plaintiffs’ Notice Pursuant to
September 7, 2011 Order (Doc. 36), and Defendant’s Notice to Court Regarding Remand
to Hearing Officer (Doc. 37).
Plaintiffs claim that remand would be futile because the parties do not dispute
what evidence was submitted to the Hearing Officer and a remand would not cure the fact

that his determination was based on “unreliable hearsay.” (Doc. 36, p. 1-2). I disagree.
The central issue of the case involves the reasoning for the Hearing Officer’s
determinations. Without allowing the Hearing Officer to elaborate on his findings, the
rest of this judicial process amounts to mere guesswork.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Hearing Officer’s determination is remanded to the Defendant for
resolution consistent with 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(6).
2. The Defendant shall, not later than September 28, 2011, file a copy of the
Hearing Officer’s amended determination.
3. Plaintiff shall, within fourteen days after that filing, respond and amend the
complaint as necessary.

ORDERED on September 14, 2011.
/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE