July 19, 2018
Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the District
of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA-374-16; DCHA-42-17 C)
Williams, pro se.
Cuahutle was on the brief for respondent.
Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, McLeese, Associate Judge, and
Nebeker, Senior Judge.
Petitioner Gail Williams seeks review of a decision by
respondent District of Columbia Housing Authority
("DCHA") terminating her housing subsidy because
she permitted a person who was not a member of her household
to stay in her home. For the reasons discussed below, we
I. Procedural Posture
Williams resides in the District of Columbia and was
receiving a housing subsidy from DCHA through the Housing
Choice Voucher Program ("HCVP"). Following a
hearing held on February 16 and April 25, 2017, a DCHA
hearing officer issued an informal hearing decision, dated
June 9, 2017, terminating Ms. Williamss participation in the
HCVP program, as well as a supplemental memorandum, dated
June 12, 2017, furthering explaining the informal hearing
decision. Ms. Williams did not seek reconsideration by the
Executive Director of DCHA. However, on August 28, 2017, she
petitioned this court for review.
on representations from the parties, submitted in response to
a show-cause order from this court, we held that, due to a
factual dispute regarding whether the June 2017 informal
hearing decision was timely mailed to Ms. Williams, we could
not determine whether her petition for review by this court
was timely filed. Williams v. District of Columbia Hous.
Auth., No. 17-AA-968, Mem. Op. & J. at 2 (D.C. Oct. 10,
2018). We therefore "remand[ed] the record to the agency
to hold a hearing and to determine the facts relevant to the
timeliness of Ms. Williamss petition for review."
Id. at 3. On remand, the DCHA hearing officer held a
hearing on January 30 and February 12, 2019, and, on March 4,
2019, issued an informal hearing decision. The March 2019
decision found that DCHA did not mail a copy of
the June 2017 decision to Ms. Williams, and that she did not
learn of the June 2017 decision until her then-counsel called
DCHA on July 28, 2017, and was provided with a copy of the
decision. The hearing officer therefore held
that DCHA had failed to provide timely notice of the June
2017 decision to Ms. Williams. Both Ms. Williams and DCHA
requested reconsideration of the March 2019 decision by the
Executive Director of DCHA. On April 2, 2019, the
Executive Director affirmed the portion of the March 2019
decision finding that DCHA did not timely notify Ms. Williams
of the June 2017 decision, but vacated other portions that he
determined exceeded the scope of the mandate on
remand. With remand complete, the supplemental
record was submitted to this court.
light of DCHAs determination that Ms. Williams did not
receive timely notice of the 2017 informal hearing decision,
and its recitation of facts establishing that Ms. Williams
did not receive the June 2017 decision until July 28, 2017 at
the earliest, we construe her August 28, 2017 petition for
review in this court as timely because, calculated according
to this courts rules, she filed her petition on the
thirtieth day after she received notice of the agencys
decision. D.C. App. R. 15(a)(2) ("the petition for
review [from an agency order or decision] must be filed
within 30 days after notice is given"); D.C. App. R.
26(a)(1) ("in computing any period of time ... [e]xclude
the day of the act"); D.C. App. R. 26(a)(3)
("[i]nclude the last day of the period unless it is a
Saturday [or] Sunday").
therefore proceed to consider the merits of Ms. Williamss
petition, in which she challenges the June 2017 decision to
terminate her subsidy based on the agencys determination
that she had violated applicable regulations pertaining to
guest stays in her home.