Saiz v. Goodwin, 71-1180.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1180.,71-1180. |
| Citation | 450 F.2d 788 |
| Parties | Theresa SAIZ, individually and on behalf of her minor son Anthony Joseph, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. M. B. GOODWIN et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Charles T. DuMars, Albuquerque, N. M. (Toby F. Grossman, Albuquerque, N. M., and Nancy Duff Levy, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Robert J. Laughlin, Artesia, N. M. (David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., and Julia C. Southerland, Agency Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.
Before MURRAH, BREITENSTEIN and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
Mrs. Theresa Saiz, appellant, has twice made application to the New Mexico Department of Health and Social Services for benefits for her two children under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program as provided by the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. Mrs. Saiz' older child is illegitimate. As a condition of eligibility for the AFDC benefits, she was asked to supply certain information required by the Department's Regulation 223.321.1 Mrs. Saiz refused to supply any of the information required by the regulation and, solely as a result of this refusal, she was declared ineligible to receive AFDC benefits on behalf of her children.
After unsuccessfully appealing the denial of benefits to the Department's State Board, Mrs. Saiz, asserting federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought this suit on behalf of herself, her infant son, and all other members of a class similarly situated. She attacks the constitutionality of Regulation 223.321 as violative of her rights to privacy and equal protection. She sought a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the assailed regulation and requested the convening of a statutory three-judge court to hear and decide the constitutional question and the prayer for injunctive relief.
Apparently relying on Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971), the trial court, 325 F.Supp. 23, concluded that no substantial constitutional question was raised justifying three-judge jurisdiction, and subsequently dismissed the case for failure to state a substantial constitutional claim. Wyman v. James involved a New York regulation requiring welfare recipients to allow caseworkers to conduct regular home visits if the recipient was to remain eligible to receive benefits. The Supreme Court found the visits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Lavine
...it first. Cf. Rosado v. Wyman, supra.3 Only one district judge has been reversed for hearing the matter as a single judge, Saiz v. Goodwin, 450 F.2d 788 (10 Cir. 1971). But that court appeared to accept the adverse determination of the single judge on the statutory claim, without precluding......
-
McCarty v. Woodson
...for the three-judge court and the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of a substantial constitutional claim. See Saiz v. Goodwin, 450 F.2d 788 (10th Cir.). The State also argues that the amended Rule is not an order of an administrative board or commission within the meaning of 28......