Smith v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 19634. |
| Citation | 392 F. Supp. 1116 |
| Parties | T. L. SMITH v. UNITED STATES of America. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
William H. Hallack, Jr., Boles, Mounger & Hallack, Monroe, La., for plaintiff.
Donald E. Walter, U. S. Atty., and Leven H. Harris, Asst. U. S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for the Government.
Plaintiff, T. L. Smith, d/b/a T. L. Smith's Store, Oak Ridge, Morehouse Parish, Louisiana, was authorized to redeem food stamps issued pursuant to the Food Stamp Act, Public Law 88-525, Section 2, August 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 703, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.
By letter dated November 15, 1973, Larry Rose, Food Stamp Review Officer, advised Smith that a pending one year period of disqualification of the Smith store from participation in the food stamp program had been sustained and that the period of disqualification would begin to run fifteen days after receipt of the letter.
Plaintiff then instituted this action on November 30, 1973, seeking judicial review of the administrative disqualification. After a December 10, 1973, hearing before this Court, we entered an order staying the Food Stamp Review Officer's order pending a trial de novo as to the propriety vel non of the disqualification of T. L. Smith's Store. On March 18, 1975, a nonjury trial was held.
Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, we make the following findings of fact:
(1) On December 11, 1972, T. L. Smith accepted food coupons in exchange for one container of "Aqua Velva" after-shave lotion, one container of "Faultless Spray Starch," two rolls of Scott Paper Towels, one package of Northern Paper Napkins, one pint of Beacon "Mop and Glow," one container of seven-inch Penn scissors, one Butterick dress pattern, and twenty "Sta-Rite" hair curlers.
(2) On December 11, 1972, T. L. Smith also accepted food coupons in exchange for one container of LeMur hair spray, one roll of Anaconda aluminum foil, one "Chore Girl" copper cleaner, ten "SOS" pads, one container of contact paper, two 9 × 1¼ inch Comet pie pans, one 8 × 8 × 2 Comet cake pan, two Westinghouse red light bulbs, one box "Double Glo" aluminum icicles, one set of earrings, and one crocheted acrylic hat.
(3) On or about December 13, 1972, T. L. Smith accepted food coupons in exchange for two Regal receiving blankets, two novelty knit baby gift sets, one Storktex baby blanket, one container of zinc oxide ointment, and ten packages of "Kool" cigarettes.
(4) On December 13, 1972, T. L. Smith accepted food coupons in exchange for two pairs of Recall panty hose, two Freud satin pillow cases, one pair of Polykins slippers, one Cannon fitted bed sheet, one Cannon flat bed sheet, one Waltz night gown, one box Stewart-Hall stationery, six Sheffield-style steak knives, ten packages of "Winston" cigarettes, and one Timex self-winding watch.
We now consider the law governing this action.
The Food Stamp Program was created by the Food Stamp Act, Pub.L. 88-525, § 2, August 31, 1964, 78 Stat. 703, 7 U. S.C. § 2011 et seq. Under that statute the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue "such regulations . . . as he deems necessary or appropriate for the effective and efficient administration of the food stamp program." 7 U.S.C. § 2013(c). Subchapter C — Food Stamp Program, 7 C.F.R. 270, et seq., contains the regulations issued by the Secretary.
The general purpose of the food stamp program is to "permit low-income households to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet through normal channels of trade." 7 C.F.R. 270.1(a). Under the program, the head of an eligible household may purchase food coupons at a discount below their face value and exchange them at face value for "eligible food" at an authorized retail food store. "Eligible food" is defined as "any food or food product for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and tobacco . . . ."
A retail grocer who desires to participate in the food stamp program "must file an application with FNS Food and Nutrition Service, in such form as FNS may prescribe. 7 C.F.R. 272.1(a). 7 C.F.R. 272.1(d). "Any authorized retail food store . . . may be disqualified from further participation in the program by the FNS for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 3 years, as FNS may determine, if such firm fails to comply with the Food Stamp Act or regulations pertaining to that Act . . . ." 7 C.F.R. 272.6(a).
Disqualification of a retail grocer follows a definite procedure as set forth in 7 C.F.R. 272.6, 272.8, and Part 273. Disqualification travels the following path:
Judicial review under 7 U.S.C. § 2022 and 7 C.F.R. 273.10 poses several problems. Some of the issues considered by the courts have been: (1) Who has the burden of proof? (2) What is the burden of proof? (3) What is the scope of judicial review? Does the Court have the power to modify a validly imposed sanction? We will consider these issues seriatim.
In J. L. Saunders, Inc. v. United States, 52 F.R.D. 570, 573 (E.D.Va., 1971), the Court discussed many of the problems of judicial review and concluded:
"I am of the opinion that the parties (a) are not entitled to a trial by jury, (b) by a trial de novo, plaintiff is not limited to the evidence presented at the administrative hearing, (c) Saunders will proceed as plaintiff to show he has been improperly barred from participation in the Food Stamp Program, and when shown, (d) the United States will have the burden of showing good cause for disqualifying Saunders."
Thus, Saunders stands for the proposition that the plaintiff in a petition for judicial review has the burden of proving improper disqualification, whereupon the burden shifts to the United States to show good cause for such disqualification. We are in accord with that holding.
The courts also have considered on several occasions the scope of judicial review. In the case of Marbro Foods, Inc. v. United States, 293 F.Supp. 754 (N.D.Ill., 1968), the Court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jedatt v. US Dept. of Agriculture
...U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 421 F.Supp. 697 (S.D.N.Y.1976); Berger v. United States, 407 F.Supp. 312 (D.C.R.I.1976); Smith v. United States, 392 F.Supp. 1116 (W.D.La. 1975); Marcus v. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 364 F.Supp. 374 (E.D.Pa.1973); Miller v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 345 F.Supp.......
-
Yousef v. United States
...is precluded from overturning an FNS administrative decision, which is supported by substantial evidence. See Smith v. United States, 392 F.Supp. 1116, 1119 (W.D.La. 1975). In this circuit, the scope of the Court's review of an FNS sanction is the arbitrary and capricious standard. Bruno's,......
-
McCray v. United States
...that the challenged FNS action is invalid. See Goodman v. United States, 518 F.2d 505, 507 (C.A.5, 1975); Smith v. United States, 392 F.Supp. 1116, 1119 (W.D.La. 1975). 5. The crux of this case and the Court's decision herein involves the burden of proof issue. While affording the administr......
-
MR Damiani Corp. v. US Dept. of Agriculture
...States, 442 F.2d 36, 39 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. dismissed, 404 U.S. 987, 92 S.Ct. 535, 30 L.Ed.2d 549 (1971); Smith v. United States, 392 F.Supp. 1116, 1119-20 (W.D.La.1975); Marcus v. United States, 364 F.Supp. 374, 375 (E.D.Pa.1973); Eckstut v. Hardin, 363 F.Supp. 701 (E.D.Pa.1973); Miller......