California Department of Social Services v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 13 Motion to Dismiss (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2009)

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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, CSBN 44332 United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143 Chief, Civil Division EDWARD OLSEN, CSBN 214150 Assistant United States Attorney MICHAEL F. HERTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General SHEILA M. LIEBER Deputy Branch Director STEPHEN J. BUCKINGHAM (MD Bar) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 09-0213-SBA ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Plaintiff, the California Department of Social Services ("CDSS"), has filed a pre-enforcement challenge to a regulation promulgated by the Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS"), to implement changes made to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ("TANF") program, by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. CDSS has failed to establish that its claims are fit for judicial resolution, and it has not
Proposed Order No. C 09-0213-SBA

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

alleged sufficient hardship to justify a finding of ripeness. See Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 (1977). CDSS's claims are contingent on future events that have not occurred, and may never occur. Additionally, the harm alleged by CDSS is neither irremediable, nor immediate. The regulation challenged by CDSS requires no alteration of primary conduct, the harm CDSS alleges is monetary in nature, and CDSS would be entitled to extensive administrative review procedures were the HHS Secretary to reduce California's federal TANF grant at some point in the future. Accordingly, CDSS has not established that its pre-enforcement challenge is ripe for judicial resolution. CDSS has requested that, should the Court find that the Complaint satisfies the fitness inquiry of the ripeness analysis, but fails to satisfy the hardship inquiry, the Court should grant CDSS leave to amend its Complaint. See CDSS's Supp. Br. at 6. The Court finds that CDSS has not satisfied the fitness inquiry and that, in any event, even if the Court were to consider the allegations of harm contained in the proposed First Amended Complaint, those allegations are insufficient to justify a ripeness finding. Accordingly, granting CDSS's motion for leave to amend would be futile, and that motion is hereby DENIED. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Having reviewed defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Judicial Review of Administrative Action, and all the relevant files on record, defendants' motion is hereby GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety. Dated 9/2/09 _________________________________ HON. SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

Proposed Order No. C 09-0213-SBA

2

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
Proposed Order No. C 09-0213-SBA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 9th day of July, 2009, I caused a true copy of the foregoing Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Judicial
Review of Administrative Action to be served on plaintiff's counsel electronically by means of

the Court's ECF system. /s/ Stephen J. Buckingham Stephen J. Buckingham

3