Dillard v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
| Decision Date | 09 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1661,76-1661 |
| Citation | 548 F.2d 1142 |
| Parties | Fannie B. DILLARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert M. Bryant, Winston Salem, N. C., for petitioner.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Greensboro, N. C., Morton Hollander and Karen K. Siegel, Attys., App. Section, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit judges.
Petitioner, Fannie B. Dillard, filed a petition for review requesting this court to review a determination by the Area Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development made pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and the petitioner submitted a reply in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
The courts of appeal are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the jurisdiction specifically conferred upon them by acts of Congress. Arizona State Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. HEW, 449 F.2d 456, 463 (9 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 945, 30 L.Ed.2d 789 (1972). In the instant case, petitioner contends that jurisdiction can be based on regulations implementing 42 U.S.C. § 4601 which provide that a claimant should not be limited or precluded from seeking judicial review or receiving a fair and impartial consideration of his claim on its merits upon the exhaustion of administrative remedies. 24 C.F.R. § 42.290 (1976). This section, however, does not support the maintenance of this action in the court of appeals; it does not specifically confer jurisdiction on this court.
Nor can jurisdiction be based under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Title 5 U.S.C. § 703 provides that in the absence of a special statutory review, "(t)he form of the proceeding for judicial review is . . . any applicable form of legal action . . . in a court of competent jurisdiction." This provision for review is not addressed to appellate court review and the court of appeals is not a court of competent jurisdiction unless specifically authorized by a statutory grant of power. School Bd. of Broward County v. HEW, 475 F.2d 1117 (5 Cir. 1973); Arizona State Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. HEW, supra, 449...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cliffs Synfuel Corp. v. Norton
...to review the agency order." Rule 15(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See also Dillard v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 548 F.2d 1142, 1143 (4th Cir.1977) (Per curiam). 3. The precise time frame is delineated in the Secretary of the Interior's Petition for a Writ of Certio......
-
Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. Department of Transp., s. 86-1556
...1291 (1982); see Russell v. Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., 637 F.2d 354, 355 (5th Cir.1981); Dillard v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 548 F.2d 1142, 1143 (4th Cir.1977). Here, the petitioners challenge agency action undertaken pursuant to the authority Congress conferred ......
-
Russell v. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of U.S., 79-1593
...upon them by acts of Congress. See, e. g., AF of L v. NLRB, 308 U.S. 401, 404, 60 S.Ct. 300, 301, 84 L.Ed. 347 (1940); Dillard v. HUD, 548 F.2d 1142, 1143 (4th Cir. 1977); 9 Moore's Federal Practice, para. 110.01 (2d ed. 1980). PSOBA, however, contains no express judicial review provision a......
-
Com. of Mass. v. F.D.I.C., 94-1649
...court or, absent exclusivity or removal, a state trial court. The phrase is often used in this manner, e.g., Dillard v. United States, 548 F.2d 1142, 1143 (4th Cir.1977) (construing 5 U.S.C. Sec. 703), and this usage is plainly what is intended here. The reference occurs in a section juxtap......