Calderon v. US Dept. of Agriculture

• Decision Date: 27 November 1990
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 90-1895.
• Citation: 756 F. Supp. 181
• Parties: Roberto CALDERON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

756 F. Supp. 181

Roberto CALDERON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 90-1895.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

November 27, 1990.

Seymour Wasserstrum, Vineland, N.J., for plaintiff.

Paul A. Blaine, Asst. U.S. Atty., Camden, N.J., for defendant.

OPINION

GERRY, Chief Judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant asserts that it is an improper party to this action, and that this action should be dismissed because the statute of limitations has expired against the only proper party.

I. BACKGROUND¹

Roberto Calderon, plaintiff, is the owner and operator of La Economica Grocery Store, a retail food store located in Vineland, New Jersey. For the past five years, Calderon has been a participating retailer in the Food Stamp Program ("the Program"), pursuant to the provisions of 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. The Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture ("FNS"), defendant, administratively determined that Calderon had violated the Program's regulations by selling ineligible items in exchange for food stamp coupons, and, accordingly, the FNS disqualified him from participating in the Program for a period of three years. The findings made and sanctions imposed were sustained by the Administrative Review Officer in his final notice of determination, dated April 12, 1990. Calderon received this notice on April 16, 1990. The letter specifically called Calderon's attention

to Section 14 of the Food Stamp Act and to Section 279.10 of the regulations with respect to your right to a judicial review of this determination. Please note that, if a judicial review is desired, the complaint must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the district in which you reside or are engaged in business or in any court of record of the State having competent jurisdiction. The complaint must be filed within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.

Calderon then commenced this action on May 15, 1990, twenty-nine days after his receipt of the final notice. His complaint named the FNS as the sole defendant, and notice of this suit was given to the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey on June 13, 1990.

The parties are presently before the court on FNS' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. FNS asserts that the United States itself is the only proper defendant and that FNS is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. FNS further asserts that Calderon's complaint cannot be amended to name the correct party because the applicable statute of limitations has expired, and because an amendment adding the United States as a defendant would not relate back to the time of the commencement of the suit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). If so, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction over Calderon's claims, and this action must be dismissed.

In response, Calderon argues that the United States is not the exclusive party against whom suit may be brought and also that an amendment adding the United States as a party would relate back under Rule 15(c). Moreover, he argues that the suit should not be dismissed because FNS' communications with Calderon were misleading and incomplete with regard to the party who should be sued.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Failure To Name The Correct Defendant

The first issue this court must decide is whether or not the United States itself is the only proper party-defendant. Because Calderon's suit seeks to have this court declare that final determinations made and sanctions imposed by a federal agency are invalid, it is undisputed that this suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity unless that immunity has been explicitly waived by Congress. See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Plaintiff's Brief"), at 3-4; see also United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 953, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976); Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620, 83 S.Ct. 999, 1006, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963). These same cases establish that when Congress has waived immunity and consented to be sued, the terms of that waiver and consent must be strictly construed. Exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity are not to be implied. See, e.g., Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1820, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983) ("when Congress attaches conditions to legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, those conditions must be strictly observed, and exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied"). In fact, strict compliance with the precise terms of the congressional waiver is considered to be a jurisdictional requirement for the court to entertain the suit. See 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1212, p. 127 (1990); Reason v. Heslin, 723 F.Supp. 1309, 1311 (S.D.Ind.1989). As the Supreme Court said in Block,

When waiver legislation contains a statute of limitations, the limitations provision constitutes a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, although we should not construe such a time-bar provision unduly restrictively, we must be careful not to interpret it in a manner that would "extend the waiver beyond that which Congress intended."

461 U.S. at 287, 103 S.Ct. at 1820 (citations omitted).

Turning to the facts of this case, Congress has expressly waived sovereign immunity with regard to judicial review of administrative determinations which disqualify retail food stores from participating in the Food Stamp Program. Congress has provided that:

If the retail food store ... feels aggrieved by such final determination, it may obtain judicial review thereof by filing a complaint against the United States in the United States court for the district in which it resides or is engaged in business ... within thirty days after the date of delivery or service of the final notice of determination upon it, requesting the court to set aside such determination.

7 U.S.C. § 2023(a) (emphasis added); see also 7 C.F.R. Part 279 (1990) (which is substantially identical to 7 U.S.C. § 2023).

The central dispute between the parties is whether or not this statutory waiver commands that suits may be brought solely against the United States. Calderon contends that

the statute does not say that the United States is the exclusive party against whom suit can be brought nor does it state that suit cannot be brought against the agency. Some courts have indicated that notice to either the United States or the Department of Agriculture where only the Department was named as a party could be adequate.... Where the regulations to which Calderon was referred fail to specify the appropriate party to be named and courts appear to differ on the issue of the exclusivity of the United States as an appropriate party, it would not serve justice to hold a layman to a higher standard of knowledge.

Plaintiff's Brief, at 4-5 (citations omitted).² We reject this argument.

The explicit language of the congressional waiver provides for suits "against the United States." Since such waivers are to be strictly construed, that language should not be enlarged beyond what a fair reading of it requires. See, e.g., Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 685-686, 103 S.Ct. 3274, 3277-3278, 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983). Accordingly, this court is unwilling to hold that the statutory language permitting suits "against the United States" was meant to waive immunity with regard to any governmental party other than the United States itself. Since Calderon's suit is against a federal agency rather than the United States itself, the suit is barred.³

In fact, Calderon's argument was explicitly rejected in Martin's Food and Liquor, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture, 702 F.Supp. 215 (N.D.Ill.1988). In Martin's Food, plaintiff was suspended from participation in the Food Stamps Program for three years for accepting food stamps in exchange for ineligible items. Plaintiff filed an action, seeking judicial review of that administrative determination, naming the United States Department of Agriculture as the only defendant. After citing the congressional waiver in 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a), the court held that

When a statute requires that suit be filed against a particular federal agency or officer, naming the United States alone as a defendant will not do.... Likewise, "a suit against the United States Department of Agriculture, or any other federal agency, is not a suit against the United States of America...." Thus, the case against the USDA must be dismissed.

Id., at 216. This case is substantially identical to our case, and we find the court's reasoning to be persuasive.

For these reasons, we conclude that the United States itself is the only party which may be sued under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a). Therefore, Calderon's suit against FNS must be dismissed.

B. Relation Back

Given our conclusion that the suit against FNS must be dismissed, the next issue is whether we should grant plaintiff's request for leave to amend his complaint so as to add the United States as a defendant. Since the statute of limitations period for filing a claim against the United States has expired,⁴ Calderon will only be able to amend his complaint if an amendment would relate back to the time of his commencement of this action, pursuant to the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). Under Rule 15(c),

relation back is dependent upon four factors, all of which must be satisfied: (1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third

...