Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01812/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01812-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMAN ALKHAS SAATLOUI,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

FOOD, AND NUTRITION SERVICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01812-LJO-SKO

ORDER AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF 

COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

FORWARD SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO 

PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND 

RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS

(Doc. No. 7)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Edman Alkhas Saatloui, ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint, which was 

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff was provided 30 days to amend the 

complaint, and filed an amended complaint on April 24, 2014. (Doc. 7.) For the reasons set forth 

below, Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable claim pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023(a)(13).

Case 1:13-cv-01812-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 06/25/14 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

II. BACKGROUND1

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff, International Bazar, was notified by the United States 

Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Retailer Operations Division (“Operations Division”) 

through a “Charge” letter that it was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) because Electronic Benefit Transfer (“EBT”) transactions 

“establish[ed] clear and repetitive patterns of unusual, irregular, and inexplicable SNAP activity 

for [Plaintiff’s] type of firm.” Plaintiff replied to the August 9, 2013, “Charge” letter by written 

correspondence stating various justifications for the “unusual activity.” After considering 

Plaintiff’s letter and the evidence in the case, the Operations Division notified Plaintiff in a letter 

dated August 28, 2013, that it- was being permanently disqualified from participation in SNAP in

accordance with 7 C.R.F. § 278.6(e)(1) for trafficking.2In a letter dated September 6, 2013, 

Plaintiff appealed the Operation’s Division’s assessment and requested an administrative review 

of the action. 

On October 30, 2013, in a written decision by the Administrative Review Officer for the 

USDA, it determined that it was “more likely true than not true that program violations did, in 

fact, occur as charged and that the Operations Division has provided substantial evidence of 

trafficking violations.” On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint, which was dismissed on 

March 25, 2014, for failure to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff was provided 30 days leave to 

amend, and he filed an amended complaint on April 24, 2014. (Doc. 7.)

 

1

Plaintiff attached to his original complaint an October 30, 2013, decision by the Administrative Review Officer for 

the USDA. Plaintiff seeks judicial review of this final decision. However, when Plaintiff filed his amended 

complaint, he omitted this October 30, 2013, decision and did not reference it in his complaint. Nonetheless, it is clear 

that this is the final determination of which Plaintiff seeks review. As such, although the original complaint has been 

superseded by an amended complaint, the Court takes judicial notice of the October 30, 2013, decision attached to 

Plaintiff's complaint. Fed. R. Evid. 201. The background section was largely drawn from the October 30, 2013, 

decision of the USDA.

2

"[T]he buying or selling of coupons, ATP cards, or other benefit instruments for cash or consideration other than 

eligible food" is "trafficking' under the SNAP regulations. 7 C.F.R. § 271.2.

Case 1:13-cv-01812-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 06/25/14 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

III. DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 

each case, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of 

poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a 

claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be 

cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (8)(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must 

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. (8)(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed 

factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation.” Ashfroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 

to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 5577). 

“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . 

‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegation

contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Id. 

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint States a Cognizable Claim under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13)

Benefits received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") may 

"be used only to purchase food from retail food stores which have been approved for participation 

in the supplemental nutrition assistance program." 7 U.S.C. § 2013(a); 7 C.F.R. § 278.2(a). 

"[T]he buying or selling of coupons, ATP cards, or other benefit instruments for cash or 

Case 1:13-cv-01812-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 06/25/14 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

consideration other than eligible food" is "trafficking' under the SNAP regulations. 7 C.F.R. § 

271.2. Stores are permanently disqualified on the first occasion of a trafficking violation. 

7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)(B); 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(e)(1)(i). Any grocery store permanently disqualified 

from participating in SNAP may bring an action for judicial review by filing a complaint against 

the United States in federal district court. Plaid Pantry Stores, Inc., v. United States, 799 F.2d 

560, 561 (1986) (citing 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13)).

Title 7 of the United States Code, Section 2023(a)(13) provides that; 

If the store, concern, or State agency feels aggrieved by such final determination, it 

may obtain judicial review thereof by filing a complaint against the United States in 

the United States court for the district in which it resides or is engaged in business, 

or, in the case of a retail food store or wholesale food concern, in any court of 

record of the State having competent jurisdiction, within thirty days after the date 

of delivery or service of the final notice of determination upon it, requesting the 

court to set aside such determination.

7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13). 

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the USDA provided “unjust reasons” for

permanently disqualifying Plaintiff from the SNAP program. The USDA’s reasons for 

permanently disabling Plaintiff from the SNAP program, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 271.2, are as 

follows; (1) “multiple transactions were made in unusually short time frames;” (2) “all EBT 

individual receipt credit was exhausted unusually quickly;” and (3) “excessively large purchase 

transactions were made.” 

Plaintiff states the USDA’s first basis for disqualification is supported by “unnecessary and 

implausible evidence” because “Senior Citizen shoppers tend to set a single day aside in order to 

do all the shopping for one month’s living.” Plaintiff alleges “there is not enough evidence to 

justify an EBT ban, which makes me [Plaintiff] feel as if the U.S.D.A Is [sic] taking advantage of, 

and/or discriminating a small Middle-Eastern based grocery store.” Plaintiff challenges the 

USDA’s second basis for disqualification by asserting, “Assyrians (Especially Senior Citizen) do a 

whole month’s shopping in one day,” “[m]any items in my store are very expensive . . . .” Plaintiff 

contends that the USDA “jump[ed] to conclusions” in taking away its SNAP benefits because 

“what [Plaintiff’s] customer choose to do with their credit is of their discretion only.” Plaintiff 

Case 1:13-cv-01812-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 06/25/14 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

challenges the USDA’s basis for disqualification by listing items available in the store and their 

accompanying prices. Plaintiff states that “[t]aking our EBT License for unusually large 

transaction is not only mind-boggling, but unjust.” Plaintiff further alleges that EBT agents 

harassed a “minimum of 15 of [Plaintiff’s customers] . . . on their own property.” Plaintiff states 

the USDA’s intent in doing so was to “gather plausible evidence to ban [Plaintiff] from EBT 

partnership, in which they have failed to acquire and showcase.” Plaintiff “urg[es] [the Court] to 

please carefully examine this case and make the correct decision.” 

Plaintiff's request that the Court examine the case presented against him by the USDA is 

permitted under 7 U.S.C. § 2032(a)(13). Therefore, Plaintiff has pled a cognizable claim under 7 

U.S.C.§ 2032(a)(13) for review of a USDA final decision.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s claim against the USDA seeking judicial review of a final USDA decision under 

7 U.S.C. § 2032(a)(13) is cognizable.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a USM-285 form, one 

summons, an instruction sheet, a notice of submission of documents form, and one 

copy of the complaint filed on April 24, 2014;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is 

DIRECTED to complete the attached notice of submission of documents and to 

submit the complete notice to the Court with the following documents: 

a. The completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for the Defendant, USDA;

c. One copy of the endorsed complaint filed in this Court; and 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01812-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 06/25/14 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

3. Service upon the Defendant is appropriate when the service documents are 

submitted to the Court and forwarded to the United States Marshal. Plaintiff need 

not attempt service on Defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01812-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 06/25/14 Page 6 of 6