Vickers v. Trainor

• Decision Date: 10 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-1796,76-1796
• Parties: Mabel VICKERS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James L. TRAINOR, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 739

546 F.2d 739

Mabel VICKERS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James L. TRAINOR, Director, Illinois Department of Public

Aid, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-1796.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Oct. 19, 1976.

Decided Dec. 10, 1976.

Frank S. Bloch, Richard F. Zehnle, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William A. Wenzel, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Before CLARK, Associate Justice (Retired), ^* FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, and PELL, Circuit Judge.

PELL, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from district court orders denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification and staying the federal action pending the outcome of state court proceedings which the district court directed the parties to bring. Our jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the stay order arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as interpreted in Drexler v. Southwest DuBois School Corporation, 504 F.2d 836 (7th Cir. 1974) (en banc).

The named plaintiffs ¹ brought this suit to challenge regulations of the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA) which provide that chore and housekeeper services are available only to recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Illinois' State Supplement Program (SSP). The chore and housekeeper services are provided by the IDPA as part of a federal-state social services program pursuant to Title XX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1397 et seq.

Chore and housekeeping services include arrangement for and/or provision of household tasks, essential shopping, simple household repairs, and other light work for persons who, because of illness or incapacity, would be unable to remain in their own homes without those services. It has been stipulated by the parties that the named plaintiffs need such services because severe physical disabilities make it impossible for them to care for themselves in their own homes. Because the plaintiffs are not receiving assistance under AFDC, SSI, or SSP, they are not eligible for the needed services under the eligibility standards promulgated in the "State of Illinois Comprehensive Annual Services Plan for Program Year October 1, 1975-June 30, 1977," which was adopted on October 1, 1975.

The plaintiffs filed their complaints setting out five distinct causes of action on December 8, 1975. The first claim charged that IDPA had violated 45 C.F.R. § 228.34(d) ² by giving no explanation of the restriction of chore and housekeeping services to AFDC, SSI or SSP recipients and by giving no indication that any public comment was received relative to the change in eligibility standards. ³ The second claim charged that IDPA's exclusion of persons such as the named plaintiffs who needed housekeeper services but had insufficient funds to pay for them violated Title XX of the Social Security Act by reason of its failure to distribute the social services in a manner which was both equitable and consistent with the objective of providing a given service to the maximum number of persons in the State who were in need thereof. The third claim charged that the IDPA regulations excluding from consideration any needs for housekeeper services in determining financial eligibility for AFDC and SSP violated the requirements of Title XX. The fourth claim charged that the IDPA regulations concerning eligibility for AFDC and SSP restricted eligibility for those programs and for chore and housekeeping services contrary to the Illinois Public Aid Code, specifically Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 23, § 12-4.11. ⁴ The fifth, and last cause of action charged that the denial to persons who have the same or greater need for chore and housekeeping services as AFDC, SSI, or SSP recipients and who similarly are without funds necessary to pay for the services but whose income came from a source other than AFDC, SSI or SSP deprived the plaintiffs and the class they represented of the equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. ⁵

On January 8, 1976, the named plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification and a preliminary injunction. On March 9, 1976, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The district court denied the defendant's motion on March 22, 1976, ruling that the plaintiffs had stated a sufficient constitutional claim for purposes of establishing jurisdiction. The district court observed that the Equal Protection claim was not devoid of any merit, implausible or foreclosed by prior Supreme Court decisions. The court also observed that, assuming arguendo Title XX had not been violated, it did not necessarily follow that IDPA's classification was rationally related to the purpose of the social services plan.

In its Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 22, 1976, the district court also ruled on the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had not met the requisites for preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the basis of its conclusion that there was neither necessity for nor benefit to be gained from the certification of a class at that time inasmuch as the injunctive relief, if plaintiffs were successful, would redound to the benefit of all the persons the plaintiffs were seeking to represent.

Following the entry of the district court's order of March 22, 1976, which the plaintiffs did not appeal, the parties and the district court judge agreed to seek a ruling on the merit of plaintiffs' claims as quickly as possible in light of the issues presented and the emergency nature of the case. At a pretrial conference on April 13, 1976, the parties agreed to file cross-motions for summary judgment with stipulated facts. Following briefing on these motions and the filing of stipulated facts and exhibits, the district court, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered June 24, 1976, abstained on its own motion from deciding the merits of the case, stayed the federal action and directed the parties to bring proceedings in state court concerning the state law claim set out in their fourth cause of action.

The court's stay order of June 24, 1976, in pertinent part, stated: "The parties are directed to bring proceedings in the state court consistent with this opinion, and the federal action will be stayed pending the outcome of those proceedings." Although the language of the order facially and somewhat uniquely placed upon defendant Trainor an equal responsibility to institute the required proceedings, the appellants have interpreted it as requiring the individually named plaintiffs to first seek a hearing and final administrative decision by the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, followed by state court review.

On July 2, 1976, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. Their first argument in support of reconsideration was that there was no state procedure whereby they could obtain an effective and prompt determination of the state law issue contained in their fourth claim. Their supporting memorandum noted correctly that the Illinois Supreme Court, in Chicago Welfare Rights Organization v. Weaver, 56 Ill.2d 33 305 N.E.2d 140 (1973), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 962, 94 S.Ct. 3164, 41 L.Ed.2d 1135 (1974), and in People ex rel. Naughton v. Swank, 58 Ill.2d 95, 317 N.E.2d 499 (1974), had ruled that actions challenging eligibility requirements for welfare seeking declaratory, injunctive, or class relief could not be maintained in the courts of Illinois. The plaintiffs' second argument in support of reconsideration was that the issue of state law raised in their fourth cause of action was not unclear, so that its resolution was not necessary to avoid a constitutional adjudication. On July 15, 1976, the district court denied the motion for reconsideration without filing an opinion. The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal, and this court subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited briefing and oral argument.

I. THE PROPRIETY OF ABSTENTION

The threshold question in this appeal is whether the district court could appropriately abstain. Initially, we note that the plaintiffs claimed a state law entitlement to chore and housekeeping services under the Illinois Public Aid Code. We agree with the appellee that the state law regarding eligibility standards is unclear and unconstrued. We further agree with the district court that a ruling favorable to the plaintiffs on their fourth cause of action would moot the Equal Protection claim. If the circumstances of the present litigation were such as to place this suit within at least one of the three general categories where abstention is appropriate, see Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813-17, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), we think that the plaintiffs' effort to wield state law as the basis of their entitlement would be sufficient to activate the abstention doctrine.

Upon examination of the more recent Supreme Court abstention decisions, however, we conclude that abstention was inappropriate in this case. The appellants' argument that there are no state court proceedings providing an easy and ample means of clarifying Illinois law correctly states the effect of Illinois court decisions. The viability of the Chicago Welfare Rights Organization and Naughton rulings cannot be questioned. We also note Ballew v. Edelman, 34 Ill.App.3d 490, 340 N.E.2d 155 (Ill.App.Ct.1975), in which the appellate court ruled that the Naughton opinion "thus requires initial recourse to administrative remedies by plaintiffs here, with subsequent judicial proceedings by way of administrative review." Id. at 161. There can be no question but that Illinois law stringently prohibits class actions challenging eligibility standards.

The interaction...