Court Opinion

ID: 9627744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:52:53.344951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:46:55.981970
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON THE MERITS
NEVILLE, District Judge.
The plaintiffs, Phyllis L. Hunt, and seven of her minor children are recipients of grants under the program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. and Minnesota Statutes § 256.73 et seq. On September 3, 1969, she and her children moved from Ramsey County, Minnesota, to Cass County, Minnesota. Since that time they have resided on Indian trust land, the legal title to which is held by the Federal Government. Financial responsibility for the family’s grant remained with Ramsey County for a year, or until October 1, 1970, but the grant was administered or serviced by the Cass County Welfare Department from the date on which the plaintiffs moved to Cass County.
Prior to moving to Cass County, Mrs. Hunt made arrangements with a local lumber company for the purchase of building materials in the original amount of $420 with which to build or refurbish a home in Cass County. Ramsey County Welfare authorities had originally authorized a shelter allowance grant in the amount of $100 per month. When she moved to Cass County, that component of her total AFDC grant was reduced to $70 per month, the maximum shelter allowance available by law to recipients residing in Cass County.
In December of 1969, Mrs. Hunt arranged for the purchase of additional building materials costing some $2,100. Apparently she considered Ramsey County’s original authorization effective to include this additional amount.
In March of 1970, Ramsey County authorities reduced Mrs. Hunt’s total AFDC grant effective April 1, 1970, by terminating the $70 shelter allowance component, without affording her an op*473portunity to be heard prior to the reduction. Subsequent to the commencement of this action, and apparently in anticipation of Cass County’s succession to financial responsibility for her grant on October 1,1970, Ramsey County reinstated her $70 per month shelter allowance with $70 per month restoration for the months between the reduction and the decision to reinstate.1
In August 1970, at the request of the Cass County Welfare Department (which anticipated its approaching financial responsibility for plaintiffs’ grant), Mrs. Hunt filled out a new AFDC application and requested a $70 per month shelter allowance.
On September 17, 1970, plaintiff received a letter from the Cass County Welfare Department informing her that the Cass County Welfare Board, following the original decision of the Ramsey County authorities, had declined to approve a shelter allowance for the payments she contemplated. The letter also stated that the Board’s decision was based on the fact that plaintiff did not receive prior approval from the welfare authorities before going ahead with the transaction, and that if the decision was not agreeable to her she could file an appeal. Plaintiffs’ attorney promptly telephoned defendant Director of the Cass County Welfare Department but was denied a request for a hearing prior to the effective date of the reduction by $70.00.
At no time was plaintiff Phyllis Hunt afforded an opportunity for a hearing on the continued eligibility of herself and her children for the AFDC grant, including a shelter allowance, before an impartial hearing examiner nor anyone else appointed to hear evidence as to facts or arguments as to the law prior to the effective date of said reduction'.
Since October 1, 1970, plaintiffs have been receiving a monthly AFDC grant in the amount of $324. This grant would be increased by $70 per month if welfare authorities had decided that they were entitled to a shelter allowance. On November 23, 1970, a State Appeals Referee upheld the action of the Cass County Welfare Board on the merits of the reduction. Damages in this action are thereby limited to $70 per month for the two months of October and November, or $140 total. Plaintiffs’ counsel states that they make no further claim.
Plaintiffs have asserted that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and (4), the jurisdictional counterparts of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which do not require $10,000 in controversy.2
The court recognizes that the Second Circuit in what it considered to be a correct application of Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939), recently held that the right of a welfare recipient to be afforded procedural due process and equal protection by welfare authorities may not in every case be a “right, privilege or immunity” within the intendment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See McCall v. Shapiro, 416 F.2d 246 (2d Cir. 1969). Cf. Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1969); Weddle v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 436 F.2d 342 (4 Cir., 1970); Hingle v. Perez, 312 F. Supp. 127 (E.D.La.1970); Lynch v. *474Household Finance Corp., 318 F.Supp. 1111 (D.Conn.1970). This holding has been applied to bar several recent welfare suits in the District of Connecticut. Kelley v. Shapiro, 305 F.Supp. 855 (D.Conn.1969); Roberts v. Harder, 320 F.Supp. 1313 (D.Conn.1970); Campagnuolo v. Harder, 319 F.Supp. 414 (D.Conn.1970); Johnson v. Harder, 318 F.Supp. 1274 (D.Conn.1970).3
In Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1970), on the other hand, the same Second Circuit found § 1343(3) jurisdiction in a case challenging the practice of denying Public Housing tenants notice and hearing prior to their eviction, distinguishing McCall and Eisen. The court characterized the plaintiffs’ complaint as one alleging “deprivations of procedural due process, a civil right, which may ultimately lead to the loss of a property right, to wit, tenancy in public housing.” 425 F.2d at 864.
Notwithstanding these decisions in the Second Circuit, this court must heed the Supreme Court’s direct statement in Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970), which was decided subsequent to McCall and Eisen, supra:
“Once petitioners filed their complaint alleging the unconstitutionality of [a certain section of the New York Social Services Law], the District Court sitting as a one-man tribunal, was properly seized of jurisdiction over the case under §§ 1343(3) and (4) of Tittle 28.”
397 U.S. at 403, 90 S.Ct. at 1213. Likewise, in Goldberg v. Kelly, although the Supreme Court’s opinion does not comment on the original court’s jurisdictional basis, that District Court clearly determined that § 1343(3) and (4) gave it the power to decide the case. Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F.Supp. 893 (S.D.N.Y.1968). See also King v. Smith, supra; Dullea v. Ott, 316 F.Supp. 1273 (D.Mass.1970); McClellan v. Shapiro, 315 F.Supp. 484 (D.Conn.1970); Roberge v. Philbrook, 313 F.Supp. 608 (D.Vt.1970).
In this case, the plaintiffs allege the deprivation not of merely $140, but of constitutional rights to procedural due process, a “right, privilege or immunity” protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction therefore exists by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4) notwithstanding the absence of $10,000 in controversy.
Plaintiffs have made a motion to appear on behalf of all other welfare recipients similarly situated as representatives of that class pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. Rule 23. The court has misgivings as to the propriety of such a course, and exercises its prerogative under Rule 23(c) to deny the request. In many welfare cases where the face of a statute or regulation is challenged, all recipients subject to the operation of the statute are interested in the outcome and the decision often becomes a precedent. In this case, whatever the precedential value, the administrative treatment of this plaintiff is all that is before the court. Proper consideration of that question has required a very specific analysis of the circumstances of her grant’s reduction, and the court’s holding has been accordingly limited. On that basis, the motion to proceed as a class action is denied.
Coming to the merits, the United States Supreme Court last year ruled that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a welfare recipient be given notice of the basis for any proposed termination or suspension of his grant and an opportunity to be heard prior to such action. Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, and Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U.S. 280, 90 S.Ct. 1026, 25 *475L.Ed.2d 307 (1970). The issue of a mere reduction vis a vis a termination was not faced. In Moldenhauer v. Provo, 326 F.Supp. 480, 4-70 Civ. 218 (D.Minn. 1970), this court held on a motion for preliminary injunction that the procedures then followed by Minnesota welfare authorities in terminations and suspensions of AFDC grants fell short of the Goldberg requirements. Subsequently, on September 21, 1970, regulations were adopted to cover terminations and suspensions. Public Welfare Manual VIII-6400 et seq.
Since Goldberg, several courts have struck down local procedures for the termination or suspension of AFDC grants. See, Moldenhauer v. Provo, supra; Caldwell v. Laupheimer, 311 F. Supp. 853 (E.D.Pa.1969); Sims v. Juras, 313 F.Supp. 1212 (D.Or.1969); Lage v. Downing, 314 F.Supp. 903 (S.D.Iowa 1970); Pack v. Dietz, 455 S.W.2d 575 (Ky.1970); Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare, 106 Ariz. 30, 470 P.2d 111 (1970). Similarly, at least two cases have extended Goldberg to cover the termination or suspension of unemployment compensation benefits. Java v. California Dept. of Human Resources Development, 317 F.Supp. 875 (N.D.Cal.1970); Crow v. California Dept. of Human Resources, 325 F.Supp. 1314 (N.D.Cal. 1970). Goldberg was also applied, with appropriate modification as to the specific procedures required, in a recent case challenging the denial of notice and hearing prior to the decision to deny current recipients additional requested grants. Banner v. Smolenski, 315 F. Supp. 1076 (D.Mass.1970). Finally, several courts have extended Goldberg to invalidate procedures whereby public housing tenants have been evicted without prior notice and hearing, where eviction has been based on a determination of fact, e. g., bad conduct or disqualification by reason of increased income. Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1970); McQueen v. Druker, 317 F.Supp. 1122 (D.Mass.1970); Williams v. White Plains Housing Authority, 62 Misc.2d 613, 309 N.Y.S.2d 454 (1970).
Goldberg v. Kelly, and its progeny indicate that in certain circumstances the due process clause requires that a welfare recipient be given an opportunity to be heard on underlying evidentiary issues prior to an administrative decision that would adversely affect his ability to subsist by contemporary standards. This procedural requirement attaches whenever (1) the recipient is faced with the prospect of being relegated to a condition of “brutal need” which prospect justifies demanding a high degree of accuracy from the original decision-maker, and (2) the decision turns on the resolution of an issue on which the recipient himself may have something to add in an evidentiary way, so that the decision-maker will have a more complete array of information before him.4
The Supreme Court has expressly reserved ruling on the question of whether pre-reduction notice and hearing are constitutionally required in some or all cases,5 but the aforementioned two criteria, which guided the Supreme Court in Goldberg, would seem to apply in the reduction context as well.
It does not require much argument in the present case that for eight people a reduction of $70 per month from *476$394 to $324 is such as materially to affect their ability to subsist. The concept of “brutal need” is not limited to termination or suspension, but may as well be applicable to reductions, at least a substantial one such as here.6 Two courts which have considered the reduction issue have recognized that the applicability of Goldberg v. Kelly depends also upon whether the issues underlying the determination to reduce are of such a nature that affording the recipient an opportunity to be heard on the facts might conceivably contribute to the accuracy of the original decision. In Merriweather v. Burson, 325 F.Supp. 709 (N.D.Ga. 1970) (2 CCH Poverty Law Reporter 11,-386), the court limited its application of Goldberg to reduction cases which turn on issues of fact:
“A common-sense view of the spirit of the Goldberg decision seems to indicate a desire to prevent a unilateral factual determination on the part of welfare officials that a particular recipient is ineligible for benefits, in view of the possibility that a determination thus made may be disputed or erroneous. This view necessarily implies that where a reduction or termination is not thus grounded on particular facts relating to an individual recipient or assistance group, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. Thus, where across-the-board cuts in funding necessitate wholesale reductions in benefits or changes in other programs such as social security benefits result in ‘automatic’ reductions or terminations, it would be a useless expenditure of money to hold hearings at the request of any number of recipients opposed to reductions dictated by the state or federal legislature, rather than by the facts governing eligibility of particular recipients.”
On the question of presenting factual information to an impartial hearing examiner, the issue underlying the determination to reduce is of such a nature here that affording plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard on the facts before a reduction is ordered might affect the decision to be made. If the only reduction had been from $100 to $70 per month solely because of the move to Cass County where generally a lower shelter allowance obtained, arguably a prior to reduction notice and hearing might not be necessary. Here however the entire shelter allowance was abrogated and Goldberg v. Kelly required a pre-reduction notice and chance to be heard in order to comport due process to plaintiffs.

. This reinstatement being undisputed in the record, the claim against Ramsey County defendants has become moot and is dismissed.

. 28 U.S.C. § 1343 reads, in pertinent part:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: * * *
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.”
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.”

. But see Russo v. Shapiro, 309 F.Supp. 385 (D.Conn.1969), in which Judge Blumenfeld, author of Kelley, Roberts, Johnson, and Campagnuolo, apparently felt compelled by the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968), to find that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) supported an action challenging certain Connecticut welfare regulations on Equal Protection grounds.

. The Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. 254, at page 268, note 15, 90 S.Ct. 1011 at page 1020, appears to have qualified its decision as follows:
“This case presents no question requiring our determination whether due process requires only an opportunity for written submission, or an opportunity both for written submission and oral argument, where there are no factual issues in dispute or where the application of the rule of law is not intertwined with factual issues. See FCC v. WJR, 337 U.S. 265, 275-277, 69 S.Ct. 1097, 93 L.Ed. 1353 (1949)."

. Daniel v. Goliday, 398 U.S. 73, 90 S.Ct. 1722, 26 L.Ed.2d 57 (1970), vacating judgment of the District Court (reported sub nom. Goliday v. Robinson at 305 F. Supp. 1224 (N.D.Ill.1969)) and remanding for consideration of the reduction problem in light of Goldberg v. Kelly and Wheeler v. Montgomery.

. See Rothstein v. Wyman, 303 F.Supp. 339 (S.D.N.Y.1969), vacated on other grounds, 398 U.S. 275, 90 S.Ct. 1582, 26 L.Ed.2d 218 (1970), in which the District Court observed (at page 348):
“There remains a difference of approximately $4 to $5 per person between the levels of the two schedules. While this may seem minor to most citizens, it is of crucial importance to the recipients here * * *. To an indigent person now receiving approximately 900 per day for food, an additional 150 per day can hardly be described as de mini-mus.”
See also Merriweather v. Burson, 325 F. Supp. 709 (N.D.Ga.1970).