DR. RAMAN PATEL, Ph. D. v. Anaheim Housing Authority (aha)

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DR. RAMAN PATEL, Ph. D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY
(AHA),
Defendant - Appellee,
GRACE STEPTER, Dir. of the AHA, in
her official capacity,
Defendant.
No. 10-56699
D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00449-AG-AN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 28, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUL 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-56699 2
Raman Patel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment, following its
bench trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Anaheim Housing
Authority (“AHA”) terminated his assistance under the Section 8 Tenant Based
Housing Choice Voucher Program (“Section 8”) without offering reasonable
accommodation for his medical disabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its
conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Bell, 602 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.
2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Atel Fin. Corp. v.
Quaker Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). We affirm.
Judgment for defendants was proper as to Patel’s claims regarding the merits
of the AHA’s decision to terminate his assistance because Patel is precluded under
the doctrine of exhaustion of judicial remedies from re-litigating the merits in
federal court. See Skysign Int’l, Inc. v. City of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th
Cir. 2002) (federal courts accord state administrative adjudications the same
preclusive effect they would have in state court); Runyon v. Bd. of Trs. of Cal.
State Univ., 229 P.3d 985, 994 (Cal. 2010) (“Generally speaking, if a complainant
fails to overturn an adverse administrative decision by writ of mandate, and if the
administrative proceeding possessed the requisite judicial character, the

-- 2 of 3 --

10-56699 3
administrative decision is binding in a later civil action brought in superior court.”
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Judgment for defendants was also proper as to Patel’s due process claims
because the AHA hearing officer was not required to directly address every piece
of evidence presented and, thus, did not violate Patel’s due process rights by failing
to do so. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(e)(6) (the written decision of a hearing officer
reviewing the determination to terminate Section 8 benefits need only “briefly”
state the reasons for the decision); see also Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341
F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (an administrative law judge need not discuss all
evidence introduced).
Patel’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Patel’s motion to expedite review of this case is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --