Johnson v. Robinson, Civ. A. No. 67 C 1883.
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois) |
| Writing for the Court | Before, FAIRCHILD, Circuit , and LYNCH and NAPOLI |
| Citation | 296 F. Supp. 1165 |
| Parties | Gwendolyn JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Charles James Johnson; and Susan Brewer, all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. William H. ROBINSON, Director, Cook County Department of Public Aid; Harold O. Swank, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid; William G. Clark, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 67 C 1883. |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1969 |
296 F. Supp. 1165
Gwendolyn JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Charles James Johnson; and Susan Brewer, all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
William H. ROBINSON, Director, Cook County Department of Public Aid; Harold O. Swank, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid; William G. Clark, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 67 C 1883.
United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.
December 28, 1967.
Judgment Affirmed May 5, 1969.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., State of Illinois, John J. Stamos, State's Atty., Cook County, Illinois, Daniel P. Coman, Asst. State's Atty., Cook County, Ill., for defendants.
Before, FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge, and LYNCH and NAPOLI, District Judges.
Judgment Affirmed May 5, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 1622.
FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge.
This is an action for injunction against enforcement of certain provisions of the Illinois Statutes upon the ground of their unconstitutionality. The challenged provisions require an applicant for certain welfare aids to have continuously resided for one whole year in this state immediately preceding the application for aid.1
Plaintiff Gwendolyn Johnson is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Chicago, Illinois, whose application for aid to dependent children or general assistance has been denied because her present period of continuous residence in Illinois is less than one year. She sues individually, and on behalf of her two minor children, and all others similarly situated.
Plaintiff Susan Brewer, is a seventy-four year old widow who is citizen of the United States and a resident of Evanston, Illinois, whose application for aid to the aged or for general assistance had been denied before commencement of this action because her present period of continuous residence in Illinois is less than a year. She sues individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Defendants are state and county officers charged with administration of the statutes in question, as well as the attorney general of Illinois.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Each defendant moved to dismiss. A hearing was held on these motions on December 11, 1967.
On the basis of the present record, and for the purpose of the motion for preliminary injunction, we find the facts and reach the conclusions stated herein.
Prior to 1964 Mrs. Johnson lived with her aunt and uncle in Georgia. After they moved to Chicago she went to college in Arkansas, but visited frequently in Chicago. After she married she moved to New Jersey with her husband.
On April 10, 1967, she, her husband, and child moved to Chicago so her husband could seek work and she could be near her aunt and uncle. Near the end of April her husband deserted her. Since living in Illinois Mrs. Johnson, who has recently given birth to her second child, has stayed in the crowded apartment of her aunt and uncle. Mrs. Johnson is without financial resources and has been living by the generosity of
Susan Brewer was born in Ireland on June 22, 1893. She came to Evanston, Illinois, in 1922 where she acquired American citizenship. She has resided in Evanston since her arrival in the United States except for the period of November, 1964 to August, 1967, when she lived with her daughter in California. When her daughter moved back to Illinois, Susan Brewer returned to Evanston. The only source of income is a small monthly social security check.2 She asserts that she is eligible for aid to the aged, except for the residence requirement, and the record does not show her otherwise ineligible.
Motions to Dismiss.
Defendant Robinson, director of Cook County department of public aid, moved to dismiss the action as to him because he was only an agent of defendant Swank who is director of public aid for the state. Since defendant Robinson directs all categorical aid in Cook County and all general assistance in the city of Chicago, he is properly a party to this suit.
Defendants Swank and Clark move to dismiss as to themselves on several grounds. First, they contend that the Civil Rights Act3 does not grant jurisdiction in cases involving alleged denials of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment. They cite Ortega v. Ragen.4 That decision is distinguishable on its facts. There are a number of decisions recognizing a claim of denial of equal protection under sec. 1983, in circumstances comparable to the present ones.5
Second, defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. While ch. 23 § 11-86 does allow administrative review from adverse decisions concerning categorical aid and while ch. 23, § 11-8.77 does provide for judicial review, such review, even if it culminated in setting aside the residence requirement, which defendants do not suggest would happen, is not an adequate remedy in view of the immediacy of plaintiffs' needs.8
Defendant, William G. Clark, Illinois' attorney general, who seeks dismissal, has some duties under the welfare laws but those duties are not relevant to the problem presented here.9
We deny these motions to dismiss except that we grant the motion to dismiss as to defendant Clark.
Equal Protection of the Laws.
Plaintiffs in this action are residents of Illinois, are in need, and (except for duration of residence) would seem to be eligible for categorical or general assistance. The provisions under attack
The ultimate question is whether the classification is reasonable in the light of some proper legislative purpose. If not, the provision denies equal protection of the laws.
The question has recently been decided adversely to defendants in several other districts.10 A portion of the opinion in Ramos, supra, is attached as an appendix to this opinion, and the views expressed therein are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Swank, 69 C 2615.
...been allowed when less than all possible kinds of eligible welfare recipients were named plaintiffs. See, e. g., Johnson v. Robinson, 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D.Ill.1967), aff'd 394 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 1622, 23 L.Ed.2d 30 (1969); Denny v. Health and Social Services Board, 285 F.Supp. 526 Finally,......
-
Harris v. Pernsley, Civ. A. No. 82-1847.
...publicity in the news media the best notice of the class-based relief in the circumstances. See Johnson v. Robinson, 654 F. Supp. 1048 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D.Ill.1967), aff'd, 394 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 1622, 23 L.Ed.2d 30 (1969); cf. Greenfield v. Villager Industries, Inc., 483 F.2d 824, 833-34......
-
Rakes v. Coleman, Civ. A. No. 174-70-R.
...incarceration. Compare Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 299 F.Supp. 476 (W.D.Tex.1969); Johnson v. Robinson, 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D.Ill.1967). 318 F. Supp. 193 In this instance, however, no claim at all is made that the Attorney General has threatened the use of or has e......
-
Lieberman v. Howard Johnson's Inc., 4168
...406 U.S. 964, 32 L.Ed.2d 664 (1972). But see Clark v. American Marine Corp., 297 F.Supp. 1305 (E.D. La., 1969); Johnson v. Robinson, 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D. Ill., 1967). However, in deferrment cases which arose under selective service laws, decisions favorable to the claimants were held to b......
-
Rodriguez v. Swank, 69 C 2615.
...been allowed when less than all possible kinds of eligible welfare recipients were named plaintiffs. See, e. g., Johnson v. Robinson, 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D.Ill.1967), aff'd 394 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 1622, 23 L.Ed.2d 30 (1969); Denny v. Health and Social Services Board, 285 F.Supp. 526 Finally,......
-
Harris v. Pernsley, Civ. A. No. 82-1847.
...publicity in the news media the best notice of the class-based relief in the circumstances. See Johnson v. Robinson, 654 F. Supp. 1048 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D.Ill.1967), aff'd, 394 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 1622, 23 L.Ed.2d 30 (1969); cf. Greenfield v. Villager Industries, Inc., 483 F.2d 824, 833-34......
-
Rakes v. Coleman, Civ. A. No. 174-70-R.
...incarceration. Compare Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 299 F.Supp. 476 (W.D.Tex.1969); Johnson v. Robinson, 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D.Ill.1967). 318 F. Supp. 193 In this instance, however, no claim at all is made that the Attorney General has threatened the use of or has e......
-
Lieberman v. Howard Johnson's Inc., 4168
...406 U.S. 964, 32 L.Ed.2d 664 (1972). But see Clark v. American Marine Corp., 297 F.Supp. 1305 (E.D. La., 1969); Johnson v. Robinson, 296 F.Supp. 1165 (N.D. Ill., 1967). However, in deferrment cases which arose under selective service laws, decisions favorable to the claimants were held to b......