Moldenhauer v. Provo

• Decision Date: 08 June 1970
• Docket Number: No. 4-70 Civ. 218.,4-70 Civ. 218.
• Citation: 326 F. Supp. 480
• Parties: Paul Francis MOLDENHAUER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jack M. PROVO et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

326 F. Supp. 480

Paul Francis MOLDENHAUER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jack M. PROVO et al., Defendants.

No. 4-70 Civ. 218.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

June 2, 1970.

Memorandum June 8, 1970.

Smith, Marino & Becker, Minneapolis, Minn., by Bernard P. Becker, Legal Aid Society, Inc., for plaintiff.

Douglas McClellan, Asst. Hennepin County Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants Jack M. Provo and others.

Craig R. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., for defendant Morris Hursh.

NEVILLE, District Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The plaintiffs herein have been receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children from the Hennepin County Welfare Board. In the early part of May, 1970, the plaintiff, Kitty Richardson, was informed by her caseworker, an employee of the Hennepin County Welfare Board, that her AFDC grant was to be suspended. Subsequently this same employee informed her that her grant was cancelled. By formal action of the defendant members of the Hennepin County Welfare Board on May 26, 1970, her grant was terminated effective June 1, 1970. At no time prior to this termination was the plaintiff, Kitty Richardson, given written notice of the proposed termination or a written statement as to the reasons and basis for that proposed action. She was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in regard to this termination except insofar as she discussed the matter with her caseworker and her caseworker's supervisor.

2. If the termination order is permitted to stand, the plaintiffs will be without sufficient funds to provide for their shelter, food, clothing and other necessities of life. Unless a temporary restraining order issues, they will suffer irreparable injury.

3. There are other recipients of public assistance under the categorical aid program, the identity and number of which are unknown, who may be and are in danger of irreparable injury if their assistance is terminated without adequate notice or opportunity for a hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. In light of Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), it appears to the court very probable that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of their complaint alleging that the procedure presently followed in termination of grants under the categorical aid programs in the State of Minnesota, insofar as that procedure authorizes termination or suspension, in a public assistance grant without adequate prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, is unconstitutional in that it denies due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

2. Plaintiffs' action would appear to be one to be heard by a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, and this court will so notify the Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit forthwith.

3. The question as to whether this action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is reserved for final decision by the three-judge court if and when appointed.

Therefore, it is ordered that:

1. The defendant, Arnold Gruber, his successors, agents and employees and the defendant members of the Hennepin County Welfare Board, their successors, agents, and employees, are enjoined until such time as a three-judge court renders a decision or until further order of this court from refusing to provide the named plaintiffs the AFDC grant which they were receiving prior to the attempted termination of that grant and to continue such grant until such time as it may be terminated in accordance with the standards and procedures contained in and set forth in the case of Goldberg v. Kelly, above cited.

2. All of the defendants, their successors, agents, and employees, are hereby enjoined until such time as a three-judge court renders a decision or until further order of this court from suspending or terminating aid to any recipient of public assistance under the categorical aid programs in the State of Minnesota without compliance with the standards and procedures contained in and set forth in the case of Goldberg v. Kelly, above cited.

3. The defendant Morris Hursh, his successors, agents, and employees shall as soon as practicable and with all due speed transmit a directive to each county welfare board in the State of Minnesota which orders them to observe the termination procedures stated in Goldberg v. Kelly, cited above, pending the hearing and determination of this action by a three-judge district court.

4. Nothing in this order shall in any way affect the right of a recipient of public aid and assistance to appeal a termination or suspension of a categorical aid grant through the appropriate state administrative and judicial channels.

5. No security shall be required for the issuance of this restraining order and it should be noted that Rule 65(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exempts restraining orders issued under 28 U.S. C. § 2284.

6. Defendants shall be served with this restraining order in the manner provided by law for the serving of a summons.

MEMORANDUM

The court realizes that the effect of the above temporary restraining order is to require the various welfare agencies throughout the State either to devise a provisional ad hoc notice and hearing procedure for termination of welfare...