DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-10-18
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Full Text

1,895 chars 
7
summary judgment, and denied their motion for a preliminary
injunction as moot. 186 F. Supp. 3d 427 (E.D. Pa. 2016). The
court concluded that while Harvey was subject to the terms of
section 8, the enhanced voucher provision did not provide the
Hayes family an “unfettered and perpetual right to remain,”
and so Harvey was not precluded from termination. Id. at 433–
34. The Hayes family appealed and, pending this appeal, the
District Court granted an injunction preventing Harvey from
evicting the Hayes family.
         II.    Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
        The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. During the pendency of this appeal, Theodore Hayes
moved out of the premises and the PHA processed Aqeela
Fogle (Theodore Hayes’s niece) as the head of household.
Under Article III of the Constitution, our “exercise of judicial
power depends upon the existence of a case or controversy.”
Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting
Intn’l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Kelly, 815 F.2d 912, 914 (3d Cir.
1987)). “Article III demands that an actual controversy persist
throughout all stages of litigation.” Hollingsworth v. Perry,
133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted). When evaluating mootness we ask “whether changes
in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of the
litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.”
Rendell, 484 F.3d at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Theodore Hayes no longer resides in the unit, he does
not have a personal stake in the outcome of this suit and we do
not have jurisdiction to hear his claims. However, since Fogle
still resides in the unit and, until she moves, is eligible for
enhanced voucher assistance, there remains an occasion for
meaningful relief. Thus, we are satisfied that the case remains
a justiciable controversy under Article III.