” Id. at 287, 122 S.Ct. 2268 (quoting Blessing, 520 U.S. at 343, 117 S.Ct. 1353). “Once a plaintiff demonstrates that a statute confers an individual right, the right is presumptively enforceable by § 1983.” Id. at 284, 122 S.Ct. 2268. The defendant may defeat this presumption by demonstrating “that Congress shut the door to private enforcement either expressly, through specific evidence from the statute itself, or impliedly, by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under § 1983.” Id. at 284 n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 2268 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Wilder, 496 U.S. at 520-21, 110 S.Ct. 2510; Middlesex Cnty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 20, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Applying these principles here, we agree with
holding that administrative scheme in brooke amendment to housing act does not provide exclusive remedy precluding claim under 42 usc  1983 because court was unconvinced  that defendant has overcome its burden of showing that the remedial devices provided in the housing act are sufficiently comprehensive  to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under  1983  quoting middlesex county sewerage auth v national sea clammers assn 453 us 1 20 101 sct 2615 2626 69 led2d 435 1981 holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law holding that there is no enforceable private right where the statute itself creates a remedial scheme that is sufficiently comprehensive  to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under  1983 holding that erisa creates no private right of action holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent