The Case Against SHRA

This section outlines our federal civil rights lawsuit against the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

But this case is not just about us. It’s about how SHRA has failed as a public agency — and how those failures have made Sacramento’s housing crisis worse.

Case Summary

SHRA’s programs are supposed to provide access to stable, high-quality housing for low-income tenants, particularly those with disabilities. Instead, the agency has adopted a culture of “bare minimum but less” — doing just enough to claim compliance while actively denying services to the people who need them most.

We allege that SHRA:

  • Repeatedly denied reasonable accommodation requests required under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, and California’s FEHA
  • Delayed and sabotaged the leasing process for disabled voucher holders
  • Denied informal hearing rights and due process
  • Ignored or dismissed requests for assistance based on budget priorities
  • Used its power to intimidate and outlast vulnerable tenants rather than serve them

These failures are not accidental. They are the predictable result of policies, staffing decisions, and attitudes that prioritize agency control and cost-containment over public service.

A Broader Failure: SHRA’s Impact on Homelessness and Housing Access

Our case reveals just one facet of a deeper problem:

  • SHRA routinely steers voucher holders into low-opportunity neighborhoods — a form of geographic redlining that undermines the entire purpose of the Housing Choice Voucher program
  • The agency maintains questionable accounting practices that allow HUD funding levels to remain stable despite changes in cost and voucher use — raising concerns about transparency and manipulation
  • SHRA offers no meaningful outreach or assistance to many of the people most vulnerable to housing loss, including disabled applicants, former foster youth, and survivors of domestic violence
  • Housing services are routinely withheld under the guise of incomplete paperwork, missed deadlines, or arbitrary policy interpretations

In short, SHRA has weaponized its own rules to shrink access, not expand it. The people most in need of help are often treated with contempt — or worse, punished for asking for what they are entitled to.

Case Information

  • Case Title: Roberts et al. v. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency et al.
  • Case Number: 2:22-cv-01699 DJC AC
  • Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
  • Status: Active (in discovery phase)

What We’re Fighting For

We’re not just asking for individual relief. We’re demanding systemic change.

  • Permanent housing solutions, not temporary services
  • Accessible procedures for all disabled applicants
  • Real enforcement of civil rights laws, not performative compliance
  • Budget transparency and oversight, especially around unused voucher funds
  • Elimination of redlining and steering practices
  • Housing access as a right, not a privilege granted to the few who can survive the process

Exhibits and Filings

We’ve included select exhibits and filings on our Documents page. These are public records and we encourage readers, reporters, and researchers to review them.

If you are an attorney, advocate, or impacted tenant and want to connect, reach out here.

Scroll to Top