Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/621/622/1368330/
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 08:56:00
Document Index: 487907193

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 272', '§ 273', '§ 273', '§ 273', '§ 272', '§ 273', '§ 273', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 275', '§ 2025', '§ 2025', '§ 275', '§ 275', '§ 275', '§ 2020', '§ 2020', '§ 1000', '§ 2020', '§ 273', '§ 273', '§ 2020', '§ 273', '§ 273', '§ 2020', '§ 273', '§ 2020', '§ 276', '§ 2020', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 2020', '§ 273', '§ 273', '§ 2020', '§ 273', '§ 273', '§ 2020', '§ 273', '§ 2020', '§ 2020', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 272', '§ 272']

Haskins v. Stanton, 621 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Ind. 1985) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Indiana › Northern District of Indiana › 1985 › Haskins v. Stanton
Haskins v. Stanton, 621 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana - 621 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
621 F. Supp. 622 (1985)
The Report and Recommendation, as well as the findings contained therein, were prepared pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (3) and Local Rule M-3. The findings and recommendations were filed with this Court and mailed to the parties. Under § 636(b) (1) (C) the district court is required to conduct a de novo determination where objections to the Magistrate's report have been filed by the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C). Makich v. Allen, 603 F.2d 1247, 1252 (7th Cir. 1972). The Court has made an independent review of the file and the proposed findings and recommendations of the Magistrate. For reasons discussed below, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
The U.S.D.A. has promulgated regulations to govern the operation of the Food Stamp Program, including standards for the timely processing of applications and reapplications for food stamps. 7 C.F.R. §§ 272.2(a) (2), 273.10(g) (1) and (2). These timeliness regulations require a State agency to provide eligible households with an authorization and the opportunity to obtain *626 their food stamp allotments within 30 days after they initially file a properly completed application for food stamp benefits. 7 C.F.R. §§ 273.2(g) (1) and (2). If the household causes a delay in determining food stamp eligibility, the State agency may take an additional 30 days to determine eligibility. 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(h).
Some households, because of their urgent needs, are eligible for expedited services entitling them to receive their benefits within five days of their initial application. 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(i). The State agency is required to design its application procedures to identify applications that are eligible for such expedited service. 7 C.F.R. § 272.2(i) (2) (i) and (II). Households with zero net income and destitute households qualify for such expedited service. 7 C.F.R. 2(i) (1) (i) and (II). Eligible households, whether entitled to expedited or normal processing, must apply periodically for recertification. 7 C.F.R. § 273.10(f).
The regulations also give households the right to file a food stamp application on the same day they first contact the food stamp office during office hours and require the state agency to document the date the application was first filed by recording the date on the application. 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(c). The State agency must also provide bilingual program information and certification materials, and staff or interpreters if the estimated number of low-income households (single language minority) in a project area or area served by a certification office reaches a specified level. 7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (2) and (3). In some geographic regions the State agency must provide both bilingual program information and bilingual staff or interpreters. 7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (3). In other regions the number of low-income single language minority households is small enough that bilingual program materials alone are sufficient or that no bilingual information at all is required. 7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (2). The State agency is charged with the responsibility of developing estimates of the number of low-income single-language minority households and ensuring that certification offices provide the requisite bilingual service. 7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (5) and (6). The regulations also charge the State with responsibility for proper administration of the Food Stamp Program and require the State to have a system for monitoring and improving its administration of the program. 7 C.F.R. § 275.1(a).
The Food Stamp Act contains an error rate reduction program that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce a State *627 agency's federally funded share of administrative costs if a State agency's payment error rate reaches a specified level. 7 U.S.C. § 2025(d) (2). "Payment error rate" is the value of all food stamp allotments issued to ineligible households or overissued to eligible households. 7 U.S.C. § 2025(d) (1); 7 C.F.R. § 275.25(c) (2). Although the error rate reduction program is a method of quality control for some aspects of the State agency's operation, the error rate reduction program does not address problems of delays in processing applications or insufficient bilingual services. Therefore, whether the State agency was meeting these error rate reduction goals has no relation to whether the State agency was meeting the timeliness and bilingual services provisions of the Act.
At the hearing, Michael L. Madalon, the Director of the Lake County DPW, testified that the overall quality control error rate for Lake County was 6.1% for fiscal year 1984. The overall quality control error rate is an estimate of the combined active case error, payment error, underissuance error, and negative case error rates. 7 C.F.R. § 275.25(c). These error rates do not measure compliance with the Food Stamp Act standards for timeliness of processing or for bilingual services, the deficiencies of which the plaintiffs complain. Instead, they gauge the rate of overissuances and underissuances of allotments and the number of applicants improperly denied or granted benefits. 7 C.F.R. § 275.25(c) (1) (5). Therefore, the testimony as to the quality control error rates is irrelevant in determining whether the defendants have violated the timeliness and bilingual services requirements of the Food Stamp Act.
The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of a welfare recipient's right to assistance and the immediacy of that need. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1970). Many members of the plaintiff classes are persons who have zero income. Alternative sources of food have also run dry. Evidence was adduced at the hearing to establish that because of insufficient poor relief funds, payments to vendors in Calumet Township are so many months behind that food vendors will no longer accept food vouchers from Calumet Township, where many of the plaintiffs reside. The Calumet Township Trustee has been unable to provide other forms of assistance such as utility and medical payments which might otherwise make available more household dollars and thereby make food stamp delays and benefit interruptions less harmful. Many of the plaintiffs in this case are persons and households in the grip of poverty. In light of this testimony, it is reasonable to conclude that, unless a preliminary injunction issues to prevent delays and interruptions in food stamp benefits, the plaintiffs may be deprived of food. The deprivation of this basic human need is extremely serious and is quite likely to impose lingering, if not irreversible, hardships upon recipients. Smith v. Miller, 665 F.2d 172, 177 (7th Cir.1981).
The Food Stamp Act requires every participating state to adopt a program for *628 granting fair hearings and prompt determinations of claims by households aggrieved by the action of the State agency. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) (10); Tyler v. Mmes. Pasqua & Toloso, 748 F.2d 283, 286 (5th Cir.1984). The Indiana DPW has adopted a fair hearing procedure which complies with 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) (10). Indiana Food Stamp Manual, § 1000. Even if this fair hearing is effective and provides a remedy for some of the plaintiffs, it applies only to reductions or termination of benefits. Therefore, it does nothing to redress the State's violations that are preventing households from obtaining timely review of their initial food stamp application. In light of the evidence that the denial of a preliminary injunction may deprive many low-income households of their sole source of food, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that they would suffer irreparable injury by a denial of preliminary injunction.
(1) that the defendants have violated 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) (2) and (6) and 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(c) (1) by refusing to permit persons requesting food stamp assistance to file an application form for participation in the food stamp program on the same day that contact with the food stamp office was first made and had violated 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(c) (2) by failing to encourage households to file food stamp applications on the same day they first contact the food stamp office;
(2) that the defendants have violated 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) (6) and (9) and 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(i) (3) by failing to provide food stamp coupons to zero net income households and destitute households within five days after the date of application and have violated 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(i) (2) by failing to design their food stamp application figures to identify households eligible for such expedited service;
(3) that the defendants have violated 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) (4) and (6) and 7 C.F.R. § 273.14 by failing to process recertifications in a timely fashion and by failing to provide uninterrupted food stamp benefits to eligible households no later than one month after the receipt of the household's last food stamp allotment;
(4) that the defendants have violated 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) (3) and (6) by failing to complete certification of and provide an allotment retroactive to the period of application to any eligible household within 30 days of its filing of an application.
The Magistrate made Conclusions of Law as to the violations stated above and the parties have not objected to these conclusions. The Court accepts these Conclusions of Law and the Findings of Fact on which these Conclusions are based. These violations also demonstrate that the defendants have violated 7 C.F.R. § 276.1(a) (3) which requires state agencies to "be responsible for efficiently and effectively administering the Food Stamp Program by complying with the provisions of the [Food Stamp] Act, the regulations issued pursuant to the Act, and the FNS [Food and Nutrition Service]-approved State Plan of Operation."
The plaintiffs have a great likelihood of success on the merits on their claims that the defendants have violated the statutes and regulations cited above. In addition, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have established a great likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the defendants have violated 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e) (1) (B) by failing to use appropriate bilingual personnel in administering the Federal Food Stamp Program in Lake County and on their claim that the defendants have violated 7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) by failing to develop estimates of the number of low-income single-language minority households in each project area and certification office.
Title 7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (6) requires the State agency to develop estimates of the number of low-income single-language minority households by using census data and knowledge of project areas and areas serviced by certification offices. If these information sources prove inadequate, the regulations require each certification office to record the number of single-language minority households that visit the office over a six-month period. The purpose of requiring the State agency to estimate the number of single-language minority households is to determine the extent to which each certification office and project area must provide bilingual services as specified in 7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (2) and (3). Because Lake County DPW has not been making these estimates, it is likely violating § 272.4(b) (2) and (3) by failing to provide sufficient bilingual certification materials and staff or interpreters.
(1) to permit persons requesting food stamp assistance to file an application form for participation in the food stamp program on the same day that such persons first contact the food stamp office in person or by telephone (7 U.S.C. §§ 2020(e) (2) and (6) and 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(c) (1));
(2) to encourage households to file food stamp applications on the same day that such households first contact the food stamp office (7 C.F.R. § 273.2(c) (2));
(3) to provide food stamp coupons to zero net income households and destitute households within five days after the date of application (7 U.S.C. §§ 2020(e) (6) and (9) and 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(i) (3));
(4) to design their food stamp application procedures to identify households eligible for five-day expedited service (7 C.F.R. § 273.2(i) (2));
(5) to process recertification applications in a timely fashion and to provide uninterrupted food stamp benefits to eligible households within one month after the receipt of the household's last food stamp allotment (7 U.S.C. §§ 2020(e) (4) and 7 C.F.R. § 273.14);
(6) to complete certification of and provide an allotment retroactive to the period of application to any eligible household within 30 days of its filing of an application (7 U.S.C. §§ 2020(e) (3) and (6));
(7) to use appropriate bilingual personnel in administering the Food Stamp Program in Lake County (7 U.S.C. §§ 2020(e) (1) (B));
(8) to provide Program informational materials in appropriate languages in project areas with less than 2,000 low-income households, if approximately 100 or more of those households are of a single-language minority (7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (2) (i));
(9) to provide Program informational materials in appropriate languages in project areas with 2,000 or more low-income households if approximately 5 percent or more of those households are of a single-language minority (7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (2) (ii));
(10) to provide each individual certification office with bilingual certification materials and with a bilingual staff person or interpreter if that office provides services to an area containing approximately 100 single-language minority households (7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (3) (i)). Bilingual staff persons or interpreters shall be assigned to each certification office which services such areas.
(11) to provide each project area with bilingual certification materials and with a bilingual staff person or interpreter if that project area has a total of less than 100 low-income households if a majority of those households are of a single-language minority (7 C.F.R. § 272.4(b) (3) (ii)).