Abdulla v. United States

• Decision Date: 10 March 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00543-AWI-SKO
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: ADEL NABEEL ALI ABDULLA, an individual; ABDUL MOHAMED, an individual; and ECONOMY MARKET, a California partnership, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

ADEL NABEEL ALI ABDULLA, an individual; ABDUL MOHAMED,an individual; and ECONOMY MARKET, a California partnership, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00543-AWI-SKO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

March 10, 2020

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 14)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Adel Nabeel Ali Abdulla and Abdul Mohamed ("Plaintiffs") own a grocery store that was disqualified from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") by the Food and Nutrition Service ("FNS") based on a disqualification from California's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children ("WIC"). Plaintiffs filed suit for judicial review of the disqualification and denial of a civil monetary penalty in lieu of the disqualification, and Defendant United States of America ("United States") brought the instant motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

SNAP is intended "to promote the general welfare, [and] to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households." 7 U.S.C. § 2011. Persons eligible for SNAP can redeem SNAP benefits for food items at stores that have been approved to participate in the program. Id. § 2013(a). SNAP is administered by the FNS on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"). Wong v. United States, 859 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir. 1988). Stores who run afoul of SNAP regulations face disqualification or monetary penalty. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2018 & 2021(a); 7 C.F.R. §§ 278.2(a) & 278.6(a).

WIC is a program related to SNAP that provides food and education relating to nutrition to at-risk pregnant, postpartum and breast-feeding women, as well as infants and young children from low-income families. See 42 U.S.C. § 1786(a); Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 123275 et seq. The WIC program in California is administered by the California Department of Public Health ("DPH") pursuant to relevant provisions in California's Health and Safety Code. See Jungil Kim v. United States, 2016 WL 7647669, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2016); see also, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123280. A store that is disqualified from WIC is subject to reciprocal disqualification or a civil monetary penalty under SNAP, depending on the circumstances. 7 U.S.C. § 2021(g); 7 C.F.R. §§ 278.6(e)(8), (f)(1).

Plaintiffs are the owners of Economy Market, a "medium grocery store" in Selma, California. Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 1-2. On June 26, 2018, DPH temporarily disqualified Economy Market from WIC for overcharging, Administrative Record (lodged with the Court on December 17, 2019) ("A.R.") 81-92, and on March 22, 2019, the FNS issued a Final Agency Decision affirming a reciprocal disqualification of Economy Market from SNAP pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(e)(8) based on the WIC disqualification. A.R. 159-163.

Plaintiffs filed this action on April 26, 2019. Doc. No. 1. The one count alleged in the Complaint - which remains the operative pleading in this action - seeks "de novo judicial review of the denial of a Hardship Civil Money Penalty in lieu of ... disqualification." Doc. No. 1 ¶ 39. Plaintiffs allege that the FNS "errantly found that the disqualification of the Plaintiff's store would not cause an undue hardship upon the local population," id. ¶ 40; that "the local population would be limited in their food options and availability in the absence of the Plaintiffs' store," id. ¶ 41; and that, consequently, "the three (3) year disqualification against the Plaintiffs should be set aside by this Court in favor of the issuance of a Hardship [Civil Monetary Penalty] ...." Id. ¶ 42.Further, the Complaint calls for the Court to "conduct a Judicial Review of the Defendant's three (3) year disqualification of the Plaintiffs, and subsequently enter Judgment against the Defendant for improperly disqualifying the Plaintiffs for three (3) years ...." Id. at 10:10-19.

The United States brought a motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2019, arguing, in essence, that the Court generally lacks jurisdiction as to SNAP actions based on WIC disqualification, and that, in any event, there is no dispute that "FNS's decision to temporarily disqualify [Economy Market] from SNAP was properly and legally rendered." Doc. No. 14-1 at 2:11-13 & Part B.

LEGAL STANDARD

Although the United States seeks summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its motion also raises questions as to the Court's jurisdiction over the two issues - namely disqualification and "denial" of a civil money penalty in lieu of disqualification - that Plaintiffs raise in the Complaint and in their opposition to the United States' motion for summary judgment.

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that goes to the power of a court to hear a case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional power and are even "obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to [its] existence ...." Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977) (citations omitted); Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that even where neither party contests subject matter jurisdiction, courts are "bound to address it sua sponte if it is questionable"). "[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).

ANALYSIS

"The United States is immune from suit unless it consents to waive its sovereign immunity." Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981)). "The doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to federal agencies and to federal employees acting within their official capacities," id. (citing South Delta Water Agency v. U.S., Department of Interior, 767 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1985)), and "[t]he terms of the United States' consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit." Id. (citing Lehman, 453 U.S. at 160).

The scope of a court's jurisdiction in connection with SNAP is defined by 7 U.S.C. § 2023 and 7 U.S.C § 2021. See Salmo v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 226 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1235-36 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Shoulders v. United States Department of Agriculture, 878 F.2d 141, 143 (4th Cir. 1989)); see also, Gallo Cattle Company v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 159 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1998) (statute providing for judicial review of USDA's Dairy Promotion Program defines scope of federal court's subject matter jurisdiction as to such program).

7 U.S.C. § 2023 provides for judicial review of a finite set of FNS actions in connection with SNAP, including FNS actions resulting in denial of an application to participate in SNAP pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2018; forfeiture of a bond under 7 U.S.C. § 2021(d); denial of a store claim (or part of a claim) under 7 U.S.C. § 2022; and, of particular relevance to this case, disqualification or imposition of a civil monetary penalty under 7 U.S.C. § 2021. See 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(1), (a)(13).

Under 7 U.S.C. § 2023, a store "aggrieved" by any of the foregoing actions may "file a written request for an opportunity to submit information in support of its position" prior to a final administrative determination and to "obtain judicial review" of "such final determination" in state or federal court. 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(3), (a)(13). Thus, 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13) "provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity" with respect to certain aspects of SNAP administration. Twin Grocery v. Deegan, 2017 WL 2362410, at *4 (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2017).

7 U.S.C. § 2021, for its part, states that "[t]he Secretary [of the United States Department of Agriculture] shall issue regulations providing criteria for the disqualification ... of an approvedretail food store or a wholesale food concern that is disqualified from accepting benefits under [WIC]," 7 U.S.C. § 2021(g)(1), and that, "notwithstanding" 7 U.S.C. § 2023, such a disqualification "shall not be subject to judicial or administrative review." Id. § 2021(g)(2)(C).

As to the regulations promulgated pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2021(g)(1)-(2), 7 C.F.R § 278.6(e)(8) states that "FNS shall disqualify from SNAP any firm which is disqualified from the WIC Program" (subject to certain additional criteria that are not relevant here); 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(e)(8)(ii) states that "FNS shall not disqualify a firm from SNAP on the basis of a WIC disqualification unless ... [a] determination is made ... that such action will not cause a hardship for participating SNAP households"; and 7 C.F.R § 278.6(e)(8)(iii)(C) states that a "SNAP disqualification" pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(e)(8) "[s]hall not be subject to administrative or judicial review under SNAP."

As set forth below, the Court finds that these provisions do not allow for judicial review of SNAP disqualification or the "denial" of a civil monetary penalty in lieu of SNAP disqualification where FNS action is predicated on a WIC disqualification and that this action must therefore be dismissed, in its entirety, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Judicial Review of SNAP Disqualification Based on WIC Disqualification

The Court first addresses Plaintiffs' plea "pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2023 for a judicial review of the ... decision to disqualify [Economy...