Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Williston v. Eggleston
No. 04 Civ. 4454 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. April 16, 2008); Clearinghouse Number: 55975
Description
Settlement Agreement Reached in Suit Challenging Delay in Processing of Food Stamp Applications As Violation of Section 1983; District Court Had Held Food Stamp Act Creates Private Right of Action Under Section 1983, No Eleventh Amendment Bar to Reprocessing Applications
Abstract
The district court denied the motion of defendants—New York City Commissioner of Human Resources and New York State
Commissioner of Temporary and Disability Assistance—to dismiss plaintiff food stamp applicants' class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; they alleged that defendants deterred and discouraged people from filing food stamp applications at nonpublic assistance food stamp offices and failed to provide timely food stamps to eligible individuals and that State failed to fulfill its obligation under federal law to oversee and supervise City's administration of the Food Stamp Program. City moved to dismiss, claiming that plaintiffs did not have a private right of action under Section 1983 and lacked standing. State contended that the complaint should be dismissed
due to the Eleventh Amendment and on other grounds. The court described "whether the [Food Stamp Act] creates a private right of action enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983" as a "difficult issue" but found that the Act and implementing regulations met the tests for enforceability set forth in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (Clearinghouse No. 50109), and Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)(Clearinghouse No. 54643). The court said that the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue did not have an "aggregate focus" but rather "establish specific rights for individual households." Regarding State's claim that plaintiffs were seeking retrospective relief barred by the Eleventh
Amendment, the court said that plaintiffs were seeking not retroactive money damages but the reprocessing of their
applications for when their benefits were wrongly denied; this constituted a request for injunctive relief.
