State of Kan. v. Shalala, 93-4162-SAC.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-4162-SAC.,93-4162-SAC. |
| Citation | 884 F. Supp. 413 |
| Parties | The STATE OF KANSAS ex rel. SECRETARY OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, Plaintiff, v. Donna SHALALA, as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Robert R. Hiller, Jr., Social & Rehabilitation Services, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff State of Kan., ex rel. Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
C. Geraldine Umphenour, Office of Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Health & Human Services, Kansas City, MO, D. Brad Bailey, Office of U.S. Atty., Topeka, KS, Frank V. Smith, III, Dept. of Health & Human Services, Kansas City, MO, for defendant Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services of U.S.
On July 14, 1994, this court issued a twenty-eight page memorandum and order granting the defendant's, Donna Shalala, as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, motion for summary judgment. See State of Kansas, ex rel. v. Shalala, 859 F.Supp. 484 (D.Kan.1994). On page 490, n. 5, of that memorandum and order it states:
In any event, the court will consider a timely motion to alter and amend if the plaintiff can demonstrate that it failed to advance any argument or failed to direct the court's attention to any portion of the administrative record based upon its good faith belief that the undecided motions concerning discovery in and of themselves precluded summary judgment.
Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant on the same day the memorandum and order was filed. See (Dk. 29).
On July 22, 1994, the plaintiff, the State of Kansas, filed a motion to alter and amend (Dk. 31). In that motion, the plaintiff sought to amend its response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff requested thirty days in which to amend its response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff contended that it had a good faith belief that the then outstanding motion for a protective order filed by the defendant in-and-of-itself precluded summary judgment. The plaintiff contended that granting its motion would not prejudice the defendant in any way and would allow the court to review the record from the standpoint of both parties. Over the defendant's objection, the court granted the plaintiff additional time to file its brief in support of its motion to alter and amend. See State of Kansas ex rel. v. Shalala Case No. 93-4162-SAC, 1994 WL 568858, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14954 (D.Kan. Sept. 30, 1994). In that memorandum and order, the court stated:
The court has treated this request by the plaintiff as a request for an additional thirty days to prepare its brief in support of its motion to alter and amend. In light of the fact that judgment has been entered in this case, the court will not permit the plaintiff "to amend its response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment." To belabor the obvious, the court will simply consider the arguments advanced by the plaintiff in its motion to alter and amend when deciding whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Id. at *1, n. 1, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14954 at *2, n. 1.
On October 25, 1994, the plaintiff filed its brief in support of its motion to alter and amend. On November 3, 1994, the defendant filed her response. The plaintiff did not file a reply.
While not raised by either party, since the time the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Tenth Circuit has explicitly prohibited the use of summary judgment procedures in reviewing decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The use of summary judgment procedures by the district court "is inconsistent with the standards for judicial review of agency action under the APA." Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560, 1579 (10th Cir.1994).1 One of the primary reasons that summary judgment is an inappropriate procedure for review under the APA is that "it permits the issues on appeal to be defined by the appellee and invites (even requires) the reviewing court to rely on evidence outside the administrative record." Id. at 1579-1580. "Reviews of agency action in the district court's must be processed as appeals." Id. at 1580. In Olenhouse, based upon the district court's reliance on summary judgment procedures, including reliance on materials outside the administrative record, as well as other errors, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court.
In the case at bar, the parties' use and the court's acceptance of the summary judgment standards for purposes of evaluating the defendant's decision resulted in no harm to either party and in no way undermines the court's conclusion that the Secretary's decision was not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the law. Despite the use of summary judgment nomenclature, the court's review of the defendant's decision was, as a practical matter, fundamentally consistent with the review procedures established by the Tenth Circuit. The court understood that its review of the defendant's decision was limited solely to the administrative record and has based its decision strictly on that record.2 In short, while it is now clear that it was erroneous for the court to evaluate the respective positions of the parties utilizing the parlance and procedures of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and D.Kan. Rule 206, the court's affirmance of the Secretary's decision was appropriate under the actual standards governing the district court's review of administrative agency decisions.3
Moreover, in evaluating the plaintiff's motion to alter and amend, the court has not applied the exacting standards generally governing motions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See, e.g., Voelkel v. General Motors Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482, 1483 (D.Kan.) (), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1484 (10th Cir.1994). Instead, the court has considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties in support of their respective positions.
At no point has the plaintiff suggested that the court has misunderstood its role or advanced any argument causing the court to believe that there has been any error in the court's legal analysis. Although the fact that the defendant's motion for summary judgment permitted her to file both an opening and reply brief, the plaintiff was afforded a full opportunity to identify any argument, point or issue it wished to advance in either its opening brief or a reply brief in support of its motion to alter and amend. The plaintiff has simply failed to demonstrate that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the law. Consequently, the court denies the plaintiff's motion to alter and amend.
The plaintiff's brief in support of its motion to alter and amend is basically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orfanos v. Department of Health and Human Services, Civ. A. No. 94-0377 (PLF).
...supported by substantial evidence. See Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560, 1580 (10th Cir.1994); State of Kansas v. Shalala, 884 F.Supp. 413, 415 (D.Kan.1995); Lodge Tower Condominium v. Lodge Properties, Inc., 880 F.Supp. 1370, 1374-75 (D.Colo.1995). Except in unusual circum......