Barry v. Lyon

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Citation834 F.3d 706
Docket NumberNo. 15-1390,15-1390
Parties Walter Barry, by his next friend Elaine Barry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Donitha Copeland; Kenneth L. Anderson; Westside Mothers, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Nick Lyon, in his official capacity as Acting Director, Michigan Department of Human Services, Defendant–Appellant.
Decision Date25 August 2016

ARGUED: Joshua S. Smith, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Jacqueline Doig, Center for Civil Justice, Flint, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Joshua S. Smith, William R. Morris, Kristin M. Heyse, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Jacqueline Doig, Katie Linehan, Center for Civil Justice, Flint, Michigan, Miriam Aukerman, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellees. Martha Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Inc., Carrboro, North Carolina, Valerie R. Newman, State Planning Body, Detroit Michigan, Thane M. Rehn, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae.

Before: COLE, Chief Judge; DAUGHTREY and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY

, Circuit Judge.

This class action challenges Michigan's fugitive-felon law and policy, under which any person with an outstanding felony warrant is disqualified automatically from receiving food assistance under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This federal program is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and administered by the states. The plaintiffs contend that Michigan's implementation procedure is invalid and that the notices regarding termination of benefits sent by the authorized Michigan administrator, the defendant here, violate the SNAP Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011

–2036c, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that Michigan's fugitive-felon policy violated the Act and that the state's notification procedure denied the recipients due process.

On appeal, the state renews its claims that the plaintiffs lack standing, that mootness should have deprived the district court of authority to hear the case, and that there is no private right of action under the SNAP Act. The state also argues that the Michigan law disqualifying fugitive felons is valid under SNAP and that its method of notifying applicants of their disqualification is procedurally valid. We find no merit to these arguments, or to several other lesser claims raised on appeal, and we therefore affirm the district court's opinion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
SNAP and Fleeing Felons

Under SNAP, an individual is ineligible to receive benefits if he or she is “fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction ... for a crime, or attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony under the law of the place from which the individual is fleeing....” 7 U.S.C. § 2015(k)(1)(A)

. Section 2015(k)(2) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to define “fleeing” and “actively seeking” to “ensure that State agencies use consistent procedures established by the Secretary that disqualify individuals whom law enforcement authorities are actively seeking for the purpose of holding criminal proceedings against the individual.” Id . § 2015(k)(2). On September 10, 2015, the Secretary finalized the rule that was first proposed in 2011 to define these terms.1 Clarification of Eligibility of Fleeing Felons Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 54,410 (Sept. 10, 2015). It became effective on November 9, 2015. Id. ; 7 C.F.R. § 273.11(n) (2015).

Previously, the states had been left to implement the “fleeing felon” disqualification on their own. Michigan's provision barred public assistance to any individual “subject to arrest under an outstanding warrant arising from a felony charge against that individual.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.10b

.2 To effectuate this provision, Michigan developed an automated program, the “fugitive felon interface,” that compares the list of public-assistance recipients with a list of outstanding felony warrants maintained by the Michigan State Police in the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.10c. When the program identifies a match, it automatically closes the SNAP recipient's file and generates a “notice of case action” informing the recipient of the termination of benefits.

The notice reads: “You or a member of your group is not eligible for assistance due to a criminal justice disqualification. Please contact your local law enforcement agency to resolve.”3 A Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) memo directs employees not to disclose information about a recipient's fugitive-felon status when asked about a criminal-justice disqualification but, instead, to direct the recipient to contact local law enforcement to resolve the warrant. In the meantime, the would-be recipient remains ineligible for assistance “as long as he or she is subject to arrest under an outstanding warrant.”

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Walter Barry is a mentally-disabled man who lives in Detroit with his mother, Elaine Barry. His history with the SNAP program well illustrates the difficulties that the bare-bones Michigan system can produce, and we therefore set it out here in some detail. In 2012, Walter was awarded $186 per month in food assistance, but in December of that year he received notice that beginning February 1, 2013, his benefits would be terminated due to a “criminal justice disqualification.” The notice instructed him to contact his local law enforcement agency to resolve the issue and informed him that he had the right to a hearing. Elaine submitted the form to request a hearing on Walter's behalf and, in an effort to resolve the criminal-justice disqualification, she took Walter to the Detroit Police Department. There, Officer Turner fingerprinted him and provided a written statement confirming that Walter had no criminal history with that department. At Walter's MDHHS hearing on January 31, 2013, an administrative law judge found that MDHHS could not establish the basis for Walter's criminal-justice disqualification and ordered Walter's benefits reinstated immediately. The matter appeared to be resolved, and because his benefits were to have been terminated starting on February 1, but his hearing and reinstatement occurred on January 31, Walter did not miss any food assistance payments.

However, on May 16, 2013, MDHHS Office of Inspector General employee Robin Thomas submitted a statement indicating that she personally had verified through LEIN that Walter was subject to a felony warrant issued on September 2, 1989, by the Detroit Police Department. In a hearing summary dated May 22, 2013, Walter's MDHHS caseworker wrote that “there was still an outstanding warrant for this client as of 5/13/13 and the worker had to follow procedure and close the case again.” As a result, Walter once again received a notice that his benefits would be terminated—this time effective June 1, 2013—due to a criminal-justice disqualification. Elaine again requested a hearing, noting in her request that an ALJ had already found MDHHS in error. Before a hearing could occur, Walter received yet another notice on June 14, 2013, informing him that his benefits would be terminated on July 1 due to a criminal-justice disqualification. Walter filed the instant case in federal court on July 24, 2013, at which time he had not yet received a hearing on his May 2013 request and had not received his food benefits for July 2013.

The day after Walter filed his complaint in federal court, attorneys from the Michigan Attorney General's office advised him that he would receive his July food assistance benefits that day, and he did. The Attorney General's office also provided Walter's attorney with information about the warrant in his name and instructed her that Walter should go to the Detroit Police Department to be fingerprinted. Walter was told that he could receive a password to provide in case he was stopped on this warrant in the future. On August 7, 2013, Elaine again took Walter to the Detroit Police Department, and once again Officer Turner issued a statement regarding Walter's lack of criminal history. The next day, Officer Turner discovered the case number related to the warrant in question and issued another statement declaring specifically that Walter was not the person wanted in that case. It turned out that Walter's felony warrant resulted from his brother Darryl's use of Walter's name as an alias when Darryl was arrested some 25 years earlier. When Elaine learned that Darryl had used Walter's name, she intervened to ensure that Darryl went to court under his own name.

Prior to Walter's second hearing, scheduled for September 16, 2013, an attorney for the state sent notice to the ALJ assigned to his case, indicating that a hearing was unnecessary and that the case could be dismissed because MDHHS was cancelling the termination of benefits based on information received that the warrant was not valid. Walter's attorney objected to the dismissal because there was no indication that the underlying problem had been resolved or that MDHHS had changed its policy. The hearing took place as scheduled on September 16, 2013, and the attorney for the state argued on behalf of MDHHS that the ALJ had no jurisdiction because there was no longer an adverse action against Walter, given that the agency had placed an override in its system to rescind the notices terminating Walter's assistance. But the judge noted that the override was not a resolution compliant with MDHHS policy and reversed the state's termination decision because MDHHS did not prove the existence of a felony warrant against Walter.

Nevertheless, as of September 16, 2013, there still was a warrant in Walter's name. In early October 2013, an email from a Wayne County email...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • ARJN #3 v. Cooper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 5 de fevereiro de 2021
    ...of the "exception to the mootness doctrine [that] exists for cases that are capable of repetition, yet evading review." Barry v. Lyon , 834 F.3d 706, 715 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Wis. Right To Life, Inc. , 551 U.S. at 462, 127 S.Ct. 2652 ). "This exception applies if the challenged action is......
  • Doe v. Lee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 8 de fevereiro de 2021
  • Walters v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 8 de novembro de 2022
    ..."Recurrence of the issue need not be more probable than not; instead, the controversy must be capable of repetition." Barry v. Lyon , 834 F.3d 706, 715 (6th Cir. 2016). When, as here, the dispute is between two private parties, "the complaining party must show a reasonable expectation that ......
  • Mote v. City of Chelsea
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 2 de janeiro de 2018
    ...to the organization's purpose; and if the claims and relief do not require the participation of individual members." Barry v. Lyon , 834 F.3d 706, 716 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. , 528 U.S. 167, 181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Automated Administrative State: a Crisis of Legitimacy
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 70-4, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...note 1.148. Id.149. Surden, supra note 146.150. Citron, supra note 13, at 1269.151. Lecher, supra note 1.152. See, e.g., Barry v. Lyon, 834 F.3d 706, 710 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that Michigan's public benefits system erroneously terminated food assistance benefits of more than 20,000 indiv......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT