Opinion ID: 310938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: right to relief

Text: 7 The district court dismissed the action, holding that: (1) the defendants had violated no federal law in their processing of food stamp applications; (2) there was no actual controversy, because those plaintiffs entitled to receive food stamps had gotten them; (3) the plaintiffs had not established a class of persons entitled to relief, for they had not shown that the defendants had in any case wrongfully failed to provide food stamps within 30 days; and (4) the plaintiffs had failed to show that any of them came within the class which they sought to establish. 8 The district court's dismissal was error. The action is not moot if either the class action for an injunction or the demand for damages survives. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969); Norman v. Connecticut Board of Parole, 458 F.2d 497 (2d Cir. 1972). There is a live issue regarding plaintiffs' claim for damages. 9 At the time this action was brought, the 30-day rule was binding on the Secretary of Agriculture. The 30-day period ran from the date the agency received an expression of the applicant's desire to receive aid. 10 If the food stamp program were run by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the 30-day rule would be mandatory. Rodriguez v. Swank, 318 F.Supp. 289 (N.D.Ill., 1970), aff'd per curiam, 403 U.S. 901, 91 S.Ct. 2202, 29 L.Ed.2d 677 (1971); Like v. Carter, 448 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1045, 92 S.Ct. 1309, 31 L.Ed.2d 588 (1972). The 30-day rule was one of the Requirements for State Plans in the H.E.W. Handbook, Part IV, Sec. 2200(b)(3). The regulations which stated that the 30-day period terminated when the applicants    receive their first assistance check    and which limited the circumstances under which the state agency could delay for more than 30 days were among the Criteria for the Administration of the Plans, H.E.W. Handbook, Part IV, Sec. 2300. While no assistance checks are involved in the food stamp program, the equivalent would appear to be the Authorization to Purchase card given to recipients rather than the mere submission of recipients' names to the District Food Stamp Budget Unit. 11 At the time the action was commenced, the Secretary of Agriculture did not purport to vary the H.E.W. standards or adjust them to the needs of his program, but, by a regulation repeating the statutory language referring to the H.E.W. standards, adopted those standards as his own. 7 C.F.R. Sec. 1601.1(g) (1970). Under the regulation, we hold that an applicant eligible for stamps was entitled to receive them within 30 days of his application.