O'BRYANT v. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
| Decision Date | 23 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | 93-0057-S-HLR.,Civ. No. 93-0020-S-HLR |
| Citation | 841 F. Supp. 991 |
| Parties | Cindy O'BRYANT, Appellant, v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Respondent, and Michael Espy, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Intervenor Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Angela Jensen, Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc., Pocatello, ID, Chuck Sheroke, Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc., Coeur d'Alene, ID, for appellant.
Larry Echohawk, Atty. Gen., State of Idaho, Brent E. Asay, Deputy Atty. Gen., Health and Welfare Div., Pocatello, ID, Edward C. Lockwood, Deputy Atty. Gen., Department of Health & Welfare, Coeur d'Alene, ID, for respondent.
Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Maurice O. Ellsworth, U.S. Atty., Marc Haws, Asst. U.S. Atty., Boise, ID, Thomas Millet, John R. Niemeyer, Federal Programs Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMING DECISIONS AND DISMISSING ACTIONS
This consolidated1 action arises from two appeals from administrative decisions issued by Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) which essentially conclude that utility reimbursements (URs) received under the United States Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq., should be counted as income for purposes of calculating food stamp benefits under the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2011.2
Appellants Cindy O'Bryant and Jennifer Jay originally filed their appeals in district courts for the State of Idaho. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, both appeals were properly removed to this court due to the existence of a federal question.
Because appellants are each represented by Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc., briefing on appeal was jointly submitted on their behalf. See Ord. Estab. Briefing Schedule & Setting Hearing, filed Aug. 23, 1993. And, since Respondent IDHW and Intervenor Respondent Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (hereinafter "the Secretary") both take similar positions on appeal, these parties jointly filed one response brief. Id.
On December 8, 1993, the court conducted a hearing on this appeal. Now, having fully considered the briefing and the oral arguments of counsel, based on the analysis to follow, the court finds that the administrative decisions issued by IDHW should be affirmed.
In their opening brief, appellants focus on the following issues: (1) whether the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded IDHW's hearing officer from finding that URs should be counted as income for purposes of the Food Stamp Act based on a decision issued by the Sixth District Court of the State of Idaho which reached an opposite conclusion; (2) whether URs should be excluded from income for purposes of determining food stamp eligibility under 7 U.S.C. § 2014(d)(1), -(d)(5), and/or -(d)(11)(A); and (3) whether the Secretary's policy of counting URs as income violates the Administrative Procedure Act and/or the Food Stamp Act and/or denies appellants due process and equal protection under the law.3
On the other hand, respondents' brief contends that the "sole issue on appeal ... is whether the Secretary of the USDA has made a permissible interpretation of a statute he is charged with administering, the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq." Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Br.4 hereinafter Response, filed Nov. 8, 1993, at 1 (emphasis added).
As noted by respondents, the threshold issue on appeal is whether or not the Secretary has made a "permissible interpretation" of the Food Stamp Act. Before arriving at a decision on this fundamental issue, however, the court finds it necessary and appropriate to address the ancillary issues raised by appellants. In doing so, the court will briefly address the relevant federal programs, and will then turn to the specific arguments made by the parties.
Appellants acknowledge that this appeal "turns on the interaction of the food stamp program, a cooperative federal-state program administered by the USDA, and the federal housing programs administered by HUD." Appellants' Br., filed Oct. 15, 1993, at 2. Accordingly, each of these federal programs shall briefly be discussed.
Congress established the Food Stamp Act in 1964 with the goal of alleviating hunger and malnutrition among low-income families by increasing the food purchasing power of eligible households. See 7 U.S.C. § 2011.
At the federal level, the Food Stamp Program is administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the USDA which promulgates regulations and sets federal policy to govern the food stamp program. State agencies are responsible for certifying the eligibility of households that apply for food stamp assistance and for determining the appropriate amount of assistance for eligible households according to the Food Stamp Act and FNS policy. See 7 U.S.C. § 2020(a), -(e)(5). In fulfilling this role, state agencies must determine household resources and incomes. The Food Stamp Act defines "income" as "all income from whatever source." 7 U.S.C. § 2014(d).
The Food Stamp Act states 16 exclusions and a number of deductions to be considered when computing household income. 7 U.S.C. § 2014(d) and (e). The lower the household income, the greater the benefits awarded under the program. This appeal focuses on the Secretary's interpretation of various exclusions.
Under the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq., as amended, HUD operates and funds various housing programs for low income families to remedy "the unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions and the acute shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower income...." 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437 (Law.Co-op.1990 & Supp.1993).
The Brooke Amendment to the Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437a(a)(1), sets the rent for tenants of public housing at approximately 30 percent of the household's monthly adjusted income. Rent covers all housing costs, including utilities. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(1). With respect to defraying the cost of utilities,5 recipients of HUD housing subsidies receive a "utility allowance." The amount of a utilities allowance is not based upon the specific needs of an individual household. Instead, it is calculated according to the region and costs of energy.
Where, as here, the amount of rent appellants pay from their own sources is less than their utility allowances, they are issued checks known as "utility reimbursements" (URs). 24 C.F.R. § 813.102. There is no requirement that URs be spent for utilities. Estey v. Commissioner, Maine Dept. of Human Services, 814 F.Supp. 152, 155 (D.Me. 1993) (). And, appellants do not dispute that the money they received in the form of URs could be used as they saw fit.
The provisions of the Food Stamp Act and the Housing Act interact when URs are issued. Because the calculation of food stamp benefits is based on relative levels of household income, the lower the income level, the more food stamps the household is entitled to receive and vice versa.
The Secretary is responsible for establishing national standards for the administration of the Food Stamp Program and has established the policy that URs should be counted as income under the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2011, et seq.
Because URs are included as income by the USDA and the IDHW, appellants' food stamp allotments each month are less than they would be if the URs were not included as income. By way of this appeal, appellants challenge the Secretary's policy which treats URs as income and request this court to order that USDA and IDHW "exclude all future UR checks which Appellants receive from their income in calculating their future food stamp benefits." Appellants' Reply Br., filed Nov. 19, 1993, at 13.
Appellants' essential contention seems to be that, at least in Idaho, principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel preclude IDHW and USDA from treating URs as income when calculating food stamp benefits.
In support of this position, appellants rely on Davis v. Donovan, Case No. 40799-C (Idaho Dist.Ct., Mem. Decision & Ord., Feb. 8, 1990),6 which was affirmed by the Idaho Supreme Court in an unpublished decision filed on July 10, 1993. See Appellants' Br., filed Oct. 15, 1993, attach. 1991 Unpublished Opinion No. 601.
Because the court finds that the Sixth District Court of Idaho lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue on appeal in Davis v. Donovan, the decision of the state court cannot be binding on IDHW or USDA. This court is not aware of any authority granting state courts jurisdiction over the kind of administrative actions at issue in this appeal, particularly where, as here, such actions arise under such comprehensive federal statutes as the Food Stamp Act or the United States Housing Act. Cf. Larue v. Swoap, 51 Cal.App.3d 543, 124 Cal.Rptr. 329 (Cal. App.3d Dist., 1975) ().7
Indeed, in the absence of any provision granting state courts such jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it is axiomatic that "federal district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331 (Law. Co-op.1986). These consolidated actions on appeal arise under laws of the United States and involve the application and interpretation of federal statutes and regulations.
Accordingly, because the state district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kennedy v. Vacation Internationale, Ltd., Civ. No. 93-00211 DAE.
-
Hill v. Utah State Dep't of Workforce Servs.
...at home." In supplemental briefs requested by this Court, the Department argued that in O'Bryant v. Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare, 841 F. Supp. 991 (D. Id. 1993), the court recognized public utility expenses as non-excludable expenses. However, this Court concluded that the case dealt wit......