Clifton v. Schafer

• Decision Date: 16 July 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-1693,91-1693
• Citation: 969 F.2d 278
• Parties: Robert C. CLIFTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael T. SCHAFER, individually and in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 278

969 F.2d 278

Robert C. CLIFTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael T. SCHAFER, individually and in his official

capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-1693.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Dec. 5, 1991.

Decided July 16, 1992.

Charles Kreimendahl (argued), Western Wisconsin Legal Services, Dodgeville, Wis., for plaintiff-appellant.

Michael S. Anderson, Edith F. Merila (argued), Axley & Brynelson, Madison, Wis., for defendant-appellee.

Before CUMMINGS and MANION, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

MANION, Circuit Judge.

Robert Clifton, a benefits recipient of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over a temporary deprivation of $558 in welfare benefits, benefits that were restored a little more than two months after they were taken away. On December 21, 1989, Judith Andrews, an employee of the Lafayette, Wisconsin County Department of Human Services (the "county"), prepared and sent a letter to Clifton telling him that he was to receive a three-month reduction in AFDC benefits as a sanction for failing to comply with a work program requirement. The letter told Clifton that the sanction was to be imposed as of February 1, 1990, but that Clifton could keep the sanction from taking effect by contacting Andrews. Enclosed with the letter was a notice of hearing form for Clifton to fill out and return to the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services (the "state") in Madison if he wanted to request a hearing. As was his routine practice, Michael T. Schafer, the Department Director, signed the letter to Clifton.

On December 28, the county sent Clifton a notice telling him that his benefits were being reduced. The notice reiterated that Clifton could avoid the sanction by contacting Andrews and agreeing to meet all AFDC work program requirements. After sending this notice, Andrews entered a code into the county's computer system that would automatically reduce Clifton's benefits for three months commencing February 1.

In the meantime, Clifton mailed the notice of hearing form he received back to Andrews, although the form stated that it was to be returned to the state. Andrews received the form on January 2. Clifton's responses on the form were bizarre. For example, in response to the question, "What action has been taken to affect your assistance?" Clifton checked boxes indicating that his benefits had been "delayed," "discontinued," "insufficient," and that the county had "reduced benefits" and taken "prejudicial action." And in response to the question, "Why are you asking for a hearing?" Clifton whimsically responded, "Because I'm getting screwed by someone and it does not even feel good. PS I hope I can get a fair hearing this time."

Andrews asked Schafer what to do with the form. Schafer told Andrews to forward the form to the state immediately. Andrews also asked Schafer whether she should remove the benefit reduction code from the computer. Schafer told her to wait until the state provided further instructions.

The Social Security Act and its implementing regulations require states to submit plans for the administration of the AFDC program. See 42 U.S.C. § 602(a). Among other things, a state plan must provide that when a claimant requests a hearing concerning a reduction in or discontinuance of benefits, the benefits will not be reduced or discontinued until a decision is rendered after the hearing. 45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(6). It is undisputed that Wisconsin's AFDC plan complies with this requirement. Consistent with the state plan's requirement, the state sent a message to Andrews on January 16, 1990, telling her not to "take the action being appealed pending a hearing decision." The notice also asked for a written summary of actions the department had taken on Clifton's case. Andrews prepared a summary and showed it to Schafer. Schafer redrafted a portion of the summary and sent it to the state on January 24.

At this point, the parties' stories diverge. According to Schafer, the temporary reduction in Clifton's benefits was a mistake. Schafer had instructed all staff members that it was the county's policy to comply with all state directives, including directives not to take action before receiving a hearing decision. When Schafer and Andrews discussed the draft summary of actions taken in Clifton's case, Schafer assumed that Andrews was aware of the department's policy to follow state directives. He therefore assumed that Andrews would comply with the state's directive not to "take the action being appealed," which in this case meant to remove the computer code that had been entered to reduce Clifton's benefits. Unfortunately, through some apparent misunderstanding, Andrews failed to remove the computer code, and Clifton's benefits were reduced on February 1.

Although Clifton does not contest that the county's general policy was to comply with state directives such as the one issued in his case, he contends that his reduction in benefits was no mistake; rather, Clifton argues that Schafer made a conscious, intentional decision to reduce his benefits even though Clifton had requested a hearing, and no final decision had been reached in his case. Clifton bases his argument on excerpts of Andrews' testimony at the administrative hearing he eventually received. According to Clifton, when read in the light most favorable to him, Andrews' hearing testimony showed that Schafer told Andrews not to remove the computer code even though he knew the state had notified him not to reduce Clifton's benefits pending the outcome of Clifton's hearing.

As noted, Clifton did receive a hearing in March 1990. The hearing examiner dismissed Clifton's challenge to the sanction against him. However, the examiner ordered the county to restore the benefits Clifton should have received while awaiting his hearing. In April, Schafer sent Clifton a check for $558. As of the date of the district court's decision and, as far as we know, even now, the county department has not imposed the three-month benefit reduction on Clifton because he has challenged that sanction in state court.

Clifton sued Schafer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Schafer deprived him of property without due process by temporarily reducing his benefits without a hearing, and that Schafer violated 45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(6)'s requirement that benefits not be reduced without a hearing. The district court granted summary judgment for Schafer. With regard to the due process claim, the court held that Clifton could not show that Schafer intentionally reduced Clifton's benefits. The district court refused to consider Andrews' administrative hearing testimony. The court reasoned that since Clifton's theory depended on Schafer telling Andrews not to remove the code until after he received the state's directive not to sanction Clifton, and Andrews' testimony did not mention the date when Schafer told her to remove the code, her testimony was not relevant to any issue in the case. Alternatively, the court held pursuant to Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), that Schafer did not violate Clifton's due process rights even if he acted intentionally because his action was a random and unauthorized act for which an adequate post-deprivation remedy existed. As for Clifton's regulatory claim, the court held that 45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(6) did not confer a right enforceable under § 1983. Clifton appeals.

I.

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A material factual issue exists only if resolving the factual issue might affect the suit's outcome under the governing substantive law. Irrelevant or unnecessary factual disputes do not preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The district court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Schafer's intent. According to the court, the undisputed admissible evidence showed at most that Schafer acted negligently when he failed to instruct Andrews to remove the computer code that reduced Clifton's benefits. Clifton attacks this conclusion on two grounds. First, he argues that the district court should have considered Andrews' testimony, and that Andrews' testimony creates a genuine issue regarding Schafer's intent. He also argues that in any event he did not have to show Schafer acted intentionally; instead, according to Clifton, gross negligence, recklessness, or deliberate indifference--the latter two of which Clifton seems to equate with gross negligence--can violate the due process clause, and that a jury might reasonably find that Schafer was grossly negligent even absent Andrews' testimony.

Clifton is wrong on the second point. This court has flatly rejected the argument that grossly negligent conduct violates the due process clause. See Salazar v. City of Chicago, 940 F.2d 233, 238 (7th Cir.1991); Archie v. City of Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1219-20 (7th Cir.1988) (en banc). We have held that recklessness or deliberate indifference may violate the due process clause. But by reckless or deliberately indifferent conduct, we mean conduct that is criminally reckless--that is, conduct that reflects a complete indifference to risk such that we can infer the actor's knowledge or intent. See Archie, 847 F.2d 1211. Without Andrews' testimony, no reasonable jury could find that Schafer's failure to have the computer code removed was intentional or criminally reckless.

Clifton's first argument--that Andrews' testimony was admissible and raises a genuine issue of fact concerning Schafer's intent--fails even if the district court erred by refusing to consider Andrews' testimony and even if...