Garnett v. Zeilinger, Case No. 17-cv-1757 (CRC)

• Decision Date: 09 September 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 17-cv-1757 (CRC)
• Citation: 485 F.Supp.3d 206
• Parties: Shonice G. GARNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Laura ZEILINGER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

485 F.Supp.3d 206

Shonice G. GARNETT, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Laura ZEILINGER, Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-1757 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 9, 2020

Chinh Q. Le, Pro Hac Vice, Chelsea C. Sharon, Jennifer F. Mezey, Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, Peter R. Bisio, Susan Musser, Pro Hac Vice, Lance Murashige, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Emily Goldman, Washington, DC, Kaitlin Welborn, Pro Hac Vice, ACLU of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Pro Hac Vice, Marc Cohan, Pro Hac Vice, Travis England, Pro Hac Vice, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs Shonice G. Garnett, Bread for the City.

Emily Goldman, Susan Musser, Pro Hac Vice, Lance Murashige, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jennifer F. Mezey, Chinh Q. Le, Pro Hac Vice, Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Kaitlin Welborn, Pro Hac Vice, ACLU of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Pro Hac Vice, Marc Cohan, Pro Hac Vice, Travis England, Pro Hac Vice, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs James Stanley, Kathryn Harris.

Chinh Q. Le, Pro Hac Vice, Jennifer F. Mezey, Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, Emily Goldman, Lance Murashige, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, Kaitlin Welborn, ACLU of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Pro Hac Vice, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Darroll Green.

Conrad Z. Risher, Fernando Amarillas, Mateya Beth Kelley, Office of the Attorney General, Gregory Martin Cumming, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge Not being a State often places the District of Columbia at a disadvantage. In this case, however, it works to its benefit.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") Act requires participating States to abide by strict deadlines for processing benefit applications and periodically recertifying benefit eligibility. The statute treats the District as if it were a State. In 2017, a group of D.C. residents and the non-profit organization Bread for the City brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the director of the agency that administers the District's SNAP program over problems the city was having in meeting these statutory deadlines. In May 2018, the Court entered a partial preliminary injunction compelling the District to comply with the SNAP Act's deadlines for recertifying benefit eligibility. Following extensive discovery, both parties now move for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs move for a permanent injunction.

Ordinarily, plaintiffs challenging a State's compliance with SNAP Act processing timelines would be entitled to summary judgment if they could show that the State has fallen short of absolute compliance (or something very close to it). But, because D.C. is a municipality, not a State, Plaintiffs here shoulder a heavier burden. They must show not only that the District has failed to strictly comply with the Act's processing deadlines; they must also establish that the failure resulted from a policy or practice adopted by District officials. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Plaintiffs have not satisfied this second element of liability. Finding that the record reflects substantial efforts by the District to improve its timeliness performance, the Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence that a policy or practice of the District caused violations of the Plaintiffs’ statutory rights to timely processing of their SNAP applications. The Court will therefore vacate its earlier injunction and grant summary judgment to the District.

I. Background

The Court has addressed the relevant background at length in several prior opinions in this case. See Garnett v. Zeilinger ("Garnett I"), 301 F. Supp. 3d 199, 203–04 (D.D.C. 2018) (class certification order); Garnett v. Zeilinger ("Garnett II"), 313 F. Supp. 3d 147, 150–54 (D.D.C. 2018) (preliminary injunction opinion); Garnett v. Zeilinger ("Garnett III"), 323 F. Supp. 3d 58, 62–63 (D.D.C. 2018) (ruling on motion to dismiss). It therefore will provide only an abbreviated background discussion here, with a focus on new developments since the Court's prior rulings.

A. Regulatory Background

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") provides benefits to low-income households to help them purchase food. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 – 2036d. To receive assistance, a household must file an initial application for benefits, participate in an interview, and verify certain eligibility information. Id. § 2014(a); 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(a)(2). If approved, the household is certified to receive benefits for a specific timeframe, known as the "certification period." 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(4) ; 7 C.F.R. § 273.10(f). Prior to the end of its certification period, a household must submit a recertification application to continue receiving benefits. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(4).

Responsibility for administering SNAP is divided between the federal government and state governments. States that elect to participate in the program receive funding for benefits and 50% of administrative costs from the federal government. Id. §§ 2013(a), 2025. In return, States must administer their programs in accordance with federal statutory and regulatory requirements. See 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) ; 7 C.F.R. § 273.2. As relevant here, those requirements include strict deadlines within which States must process their residents’ SNAP applications.

With respect to initial applications, the certification process must be completed, and benefits provided, within 30 days of an application's filing. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(3). The deadline is even more stringent—no later than seven days after an application is filed—for so-called "expedited" applications from households with extremely low income. Id. § 2020(e)(9)(A) ; 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(i)(2), (3), (4). As for recertification applications, the agency must provide each household with a notice of expiration and of the need to recertify before the start of the last month of their certification period. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(4) ; 7 C.F.R. § 273.14(b)(1). If a household submits its recertification application at least 15 days prior to the expiration of its certification period, the State must provide benefits—if the household remains eligible—without interruption. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(4) ; 7 C.F.R. § 273.14(c), (d). If a household submits its recertification application within a 45-day grace period after the 15th day of the last certification month, the State must process the application within 30 days of the application filing date. 7 C.F.R. § 273.14(e)(1).

The certification or recertification process may be held up if the customer is missing verification or does not complete an interview. In the former scenario, the agency is required to provide households with a notice of required verification and at least ten days to provide the missing verification. 7 C.F.R. §§ 273.2(f) (initial application), 273.14(b)(4) (recertification). In the latter situation, the agency must "promptly" schedule an interview within the 30 days of the application and, if a household misses an interview, provide a notice of missed interview. Id. §§ 273.2(e)(3) (initial application); 273.14(b)(4) (recertification).

The federal Food and Nutrition Service ("FNS" or the "Service"), an agency within the Department of Agriculture, oversees the States’ administration of SNAP. 7 U.S.C. § 2013(c) ; 7 C.F.R. § 271.3. As part of its extensive oversight duties, FNS monitors the States’ SNAP application processing using three timeliness metrics. See Memorandum from Lizbeth Silbermann on the Three Ways Initial SNAP Application Processing Timeliness is Measured to All SNAP Regional Directors ("FNS June 2017 Memo") 1 (June 2, 2017), Gov. MSJ, Exh. Q. First , the Application Processing Timeliness Rate ("QC APT Rate") is based on a sample of approximately 90 active cases (households currently receiving benefits) pulled each month. Id. at 1–2. The State agency's Quality Control ("QC") team collects information on whether initial applications sampled were processed on a timely basis, and the number of applications approved timely is divided by the total applications in the sample to arrive at the QC APT Rate. Id. Second , the State Timeliness Rate is calculated from the entire universe of State SNAP cases by dividing the total number of initial applications approved timely by the total number of applications. Id. at 3–4. Finally , the Certification Section of the FNS Program and Budget Summary Statement, Part B-Program Activity Statement ("FNS-366B") tracks the number of initial and recertification applications approved or denied by the State agency in the specified reporting quarter, including the number of application decisions that were overdue by 1–30 days, 31–60 days, 61–90 days, and 91 days or more. Id. at 4–5.¹ In addition to these quantitative measures, FNS regularly monitors States’ SNAP administration through management evaluation reviews, advocate and client complaints, and other methods of information gathering. Id. at 1; see, e.g., Pl. MSJ, Exh. G.

Based on this monitoring, FNS enforces the SNAP Act's timeliness requirements through a standard escalation protocol. See Memorandum from Lizbeth Silbermann on Guidance for Improving State Timeliness Rates & Standardizing the Escalation Process to All SNAP Regional Directors ("FNS March 2016 Memo") (Mar. 18, 2016), Gov. MSJ, Exh. S, ECF No. 138-21. The protocol is based primarily on the QC APT Rate: FNS considers a rolling six-month average QC APT Rate of 95% or higher to be acceptable performance and subjects States to escalation procedures only if their rate dips below 90%. Id. at 2.² The first step in the escalation protocol is to subject States to a Corrective Action Plan ("CAP"). Id...