Davis v. Proud

• Decision Date: 05 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–CV–1663 (SJF)(WDW).,13–CV–1663 (SJF)(WDW).
• Citation: 2 F.Supp.3d 460
• Parties: Edward L. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kristin M. PROUD, as Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family Assistance, and Tom Vilsack, as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

2 F.Supp.3d 460

Edward L. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.Kristin M. PROUD, as Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family Assistance, and Tom Vilsack, as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants.

No. 13–CV–1663 (SJF)(WDW).

United States District Court,

E.D. New York.

Signed March 5, 2014.

John F. Castellano, Mercy Advocate Program Mercy Haven, Inc., Islip Terrace, NY, Peter Vollmer, Law Office of Peter Vollmer, P.C., Sea Cliff, Ny, Peter Vollmer, Vollmer & Tanck, Jericho Atrium, Jericho, NY, for Plaintiff.

Toni E. Logue, NYS Attorney General's Office, Mineola, NY, Robert W. Schumacher, II, U.S. Attorney's Office, Central Islip, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.

On March 28, 2013, plaintiff Edward L. Davis (“plaintiff”) commenced this putative class action against defendants Kristin M. Proud, as Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family Assistance (“OTDA,” “the State defendant” or “Proud”), and Tom Vilsack, as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA” or “the Federal defendant”), pursuant to, inter alia, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief relating to defendants' restoration of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). Pending before the Court is the State defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief, in which the Federal defendant joins. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

On or about June 22, 2004, the Federal defendant approved the State defendant's five (5)-year pilot project known as the Group Home Standardized Benefit Program (“GHSBP”), (Complaint [“Compl.”], ¶ 32), for the distribution of standardized SNAP allotments to eligible residents of certain group home facilities, as an alternative to the individualized calculation of SNAP benefits. (Compl., ¶ 31). GHSBP was implemented in most of New York, with the exception of New York City, on January 1, 2005, and was implemented in New York City on March I, 2005. (Compl., ¶ 33).

In or about June 2006, certain residents of group homes entitled to and/or receiving Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits commenced a hybrid proceeding (“the state court proceeding”) pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against Robert Doar, the former commissioner of the OTDA, and John E. Imhof, as commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services (“DSS”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (“the state court”) alleging, inter alia, that “under the GHSBP, recipients of SSI benefits residing in group homes were awarded less than one half the monthly food stamp allotment given to similarly-situated [public assistance (‘PA’) ] recipients, in violation of their equal protection rights.” In re Graves v. Doar (“Graves II”), 87 A.D.3d 740, 742, 928 N.Y.S.2d 774 (2d Dept.2011).¹

By decision and order dated October 1, 2007, the state court (Woodard, J.), inter alia: (1) denied the motion of the petitioners therein seeking certification of the state court proceeding as a class action pursuant to Sections 901 and 902 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules; and (2) granted a separate motion by the petitioners therein seeking partial summary judgment declaring that the OTDA's “implementation of GHSBP violate[d] the rule-making requirements of Article IV § 8 of the New York State Constitution and Article 2 of SAPA.” In re Graves v. Doar, No. 10218/06, 2007 WL 2978539, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 33147(U) (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Oct. 1, 2007) ( See Compl., Ex. B). Partial final judgment was entered upon the October 1, 2007 decision and order in the state court proceeding on December 13, 2007. In re Graves v. Doar, No. 10218/06 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Dec. 13, 2007) ( See Compl., Ex. C). By order dated May 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”), inter alia, reversed so much of the state court's October 1, 2007 order as denied the petitioners' motion seeking class certification and granted that branch of the petitioners' motion to the extent of certifying a class (“the Graves class”) consisting of:

“[A]ll recipients of [SNAP] in the State of New York whose [SNAP] benefits were determined and reduced under the [GHSBP] and whose monthly income included payments of [SSI] benefits.” In re Graves v. Doar (“Graves I”), 62 A.D.3d 874, 875, 879 N.Y.S.2d 204 (2d Dept.2009).

Effective October 1, 2008, the State defendant “abandoned * * * the operation of the GHSBP, and returned to the individualized computation of SNAP benefits for group home residents.” (Compl., ¶¶ 35–36).

By order dated March 31, 2009, the state court (Woodard, J.), inter alia, “declared that the implementation of the GHSBP violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I (§ 11) of the New York Constitution[,]” and “directed the restoration of monthly food stamp benefits which the petitioners [in the state court proceeding] would have received had the GHSBP not been implemented * * *.” Graves II, 87 A.D.3d at 742, 928 N.Y.S.2d 774. ( See Compl. Ex. D). By decision dated August 30, 2011, the Appellate Division, affirmed, as modified, the state court's March 31, 2009 order, finding, inter alia, that the state court properly: (1) “declared that the implementation of the GHSBP violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York Constitutions since the petitioners [in the state court proceeding] established that the respondents/defendants [thereto] did not have a rational basis for providing higher allotments of food stamps to similarly-situated recipients of PA than to recipients of SSI,” Graves II, 87 A.D.3d at 742–43, 928 N.Y.S.2d 774; (2) “limited the petitioners' recovery to the restoration of monthly food stamp benefits which they would have received had the GHSBP not been implemented,” id. at 743, 928 N.Y.S.2d 774; and (3) “in effect, declared that the GHSBP does not violate article XVII, § 1 of the New York Constitution.” Id. The Appellate Division further held:

“To the extent that the petitioners [in the state court proceeding] seek retroactive relief in the form of [SNAP] allotments that are equal to those awarded to their counterparts receiving PA, the cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred since it does not seek to conform the future conduct of the State and its officers to constitutional norms, but seeks merely to recover damages from the State to remedy a past violation of law, and the State and its officers in their official capacities are not ‘persons' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject to such liability * * *. The petitioners are also not entitled to recover retroactive benefits equal to those received by their PA recipient counterparts pursuant to their state constitutional claims, as such relief would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's prior invalidation of the GHSBP methodology of calculating [SNAP] benefits * * *.”

Id. at 743, 928 N.Y.S.2d 774 (citations omitted).

Subsequently, the State defendant devised a SNAP restoration plan calling for the restoration of SNAP benefits to the Graves class members in New York City (“the NYC class members”) for the forty-three (43)-month period from March 1, 2005 through September 30, 2008, and to the remaining Graves class members (“the non-NYC class members”) for the forty-five (45)-month period from January 1, 2005 through September 30, 2008, and submitted it to the Federal defendant for approval. (Compl., ¶¶ 40–41).

On or about August 26, 2010, the Federal defendant requested specific information from the State defendant regarding its request for approval of the SNAP restoration plan, ( See Compl., Ex. E), to confirm that the SNAP restoration plan met SNAP requirements. ( See Compl., Ex. G). One of those questions was: “How would the calculation take into account changes in cost of living adjustments [‘COLA’]?” ( See Compl., Ex. E). In a letter dated November 1, 2010, the State defendant responded, inter alia:

“[W]e reviewed the impact of the SSI COLA and determined that [SNAP] benefits decreased $5.00 [five dollars] for [non-NYC] group home residents as a result of the COLA. We determined that 536 [five hundred thirty-six] individuals had a decrease in [SNAP] benefits solely as a result of the COLA and thus, are not part of the class. * * * As a result, the class size * * * will be reduced from 15,700 [fifteen thousand seven hundred] to 15, 164 [fifteen thousand one hundred sixty-four] and the total estimated restored benefit would be reduced to approximately $7,900,000 [seven million nine hundred thousand dollars].”

(Compl., ¶ 42, Ex. E).

By letter dated September 7, 2011, the State defendant: (1) advised the Federal defendant, inter alia, (a) that it had “refined the estimates of the class size and the amount of the restored benefits” and (b) that “[t]he more refined estimates provide for restored benefits to be issued to a class of approximately 15, 120 [fifteen thousand one hundred twenty] individuals with a total estimated restored benefit of approximately $6,616,989 [six million six hundred sixteen thousand nine hundred eighty-nine dollars][;]” and (2) requested the Federal defendant's “expeditious approval” of the SNAP restoration plan. (Compl., Ex. F).

By letter dated September 28, 2011, the Federal defendant, “relying upon...