Bell v. Murphy et al
Filing
86
OPINION AND ORDER denying 79 Motion to Dismiss and referring the case to Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein to supervise discovery and under what terms this case should be disposed, and for all other pre-trial matters. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 8/31/2011. (kds) Modified (opinion) on 8/31/2011 (ksc).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TIFFANY BELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANNE W. MURPHY, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the Indiana
Family and Social Services Administration,
and CATHY BOGGS, in her official
capacity as the Director of the Division
of Family Resources,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:09-CV-148-PPS-CAN
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Tiffany Bell filed this Section 1983 action on April 7, 2009, on behalf of herself
and a putative class of Indiana food stamp applicants, alleging that the State of Indiana and its
Family and Social Services Administration had failed to comply with federal statutes and
regulations governing the time frames for processing food stamp applications, and seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief [DE 1]. On the same date, Bell moved for class
certification [DE 5], and a preliminary injunction order requiring Defendants to timely process
food stamp applications and issue expedited food stamps, as required by federal law [DE 4].
Judge Miller, to whom the case was originally assigned, later certified the class and sub-class
proposed by the parties [DE 40]. As for the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the parties
stipulated to a consent preliminary injunction order [DE 56], which Judge Miller entered [DE
59]. In the meantime, the case was transferred to me.
The consent order had a term of 20 months. [Id., ¶ 13]. During this period, Defendants
were required, among other things, to produce certain reports – including the GRP 508RB
reports (“508RB”) at issue in the pending motion – that measure the processing time for food
stamp applications and the backlog of unprocessed applications [Id., ¶¶ 10 & 15]. Plaintiffs, for
their part, were required to notify Defendants in the event they believed Defendants were not in
compliance with the consent order [Id., ¶ 16].
Paragraph 13 of the consent order provides that, 15 days before the end of the twentieth
month, “the parties may either file an order of dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41 or a proposed order on consent disposing of the action” [Id., ¶ 13]. If the
parties fail to submit an order consistent with Paragraph 13, Paragraph 14 provides that the Court
will then “place this action upon the trial calendar as provided by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 40 and shall require all pre-trial procedures as it sees fit” [Id., ¶ 14].
Defendants timely moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Paragraph 13, but Plaintiffs
argue that dismissal is not warranted because the consent order resolves only the relief sought in
the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, not the action in its entirety. Plaintiffs also seek
discovery of certain factual issues relating to compliance issues, which they believe may lead to
a quick resolution of the action. In particular, Plaintiffs indicate that new data reported by the
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (“FNS”) raise questions as to the
reliability of the 508RB reports, which the consent decree requires Defendants to produce.
Plaintiffs believe that discovery will indicate the extent of any possible discrepancies between
the 508RB reports and the new data reported by FNS, thereby permitting the Plaintiffs to
determine how and under what terms to finally dispose of the case.
Defendants’ attempt to dismiss the action over Plaintiffs’ objection is blocked by the very
terms of the consent order on which Defendants rely. Paragraph 13 of the consent order, under
which Defendants have moved, contemplates dismissal of the action, but only pursuant to either
Rule 41 or “a proposed order on consent” [Id., ¶ 13]. Plaintiffs obviously do not consent to
dismissal, which leaves Rule 41 as the only basis upon which the consent order permits
dismissal. But because Plaintiffs are not the party moving to dismiss here, Rule 41(a) cannot
2
form the basis for dismissal here.
Rule 41(b) is the only remaining provision pursuant to which Defendants might seek
dismissal without the Plaintiffs’ consent. But that route is also unavailable here. Rule 41(b)
permits a defendant to move for dismissal “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with
these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). However, Defendants’ motion to dismiss
does not contend that Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute the case. And during oral argument on
the motion [DE 85], Defendants confirmed that they are not claiming that Plaintiffs have failed
to prosecute the case. Nor could they make such a claim in good faith. Dismissal for want of
prosecution is appropriate only “when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct,
or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing.” Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462,
467 (7th Cir. 2003). Defendants complain that Plaintiffs did not raise their concerns with the
reliability of the 508RB reports until after the term of the consent order. And I agree that this is
irksome. But the consent order does not clearly require them to do so. Paragraph 16 of the order
only requires Plaintiffs to report a compliance issue if they believe “that the defendants are not in
compliance with any portion of this order” [DE 59, ¶ 16]. And Plaintiffs have not taken issue
with Defendants’ compliance in producing the 508RB reports. They merely contend that new
data reported by FNS, which Plaintiffs apparently did not discover until toward the end of the
consent order’s term, may prove more reliable than the 508RB reports required by the order.
If the consent order had required Plaintiffs to timely raise any concerns about the
reliability of the 508RB reports during the 20-month term of the order, then perhaps Plaintiffs’
delay in raising these concerns could have supplied a basis for moving to dismiss for want of
prosecution. But Defendants fail to point to any provision of the consent order that requires
this. And I fail to see any such provision.
Moreover, it is clear that the parties did not believe that the consent order was resolving
the entire action, but rather only those issues raised by the motion for preliminary injunctive
relief. For example, the preamble to the consent order provides that “the parties have agreed to
3
resolve all the issues presented in the motion for preliminary injunctive relief” [DE 59 at 2].
And Paragraph 14 specifically contemplates that the action will continue to trial if the parties are
unable to reach the stipulated dismissal provided for in Paragraph 13:
Upon the failure of the parties to submit an order consistent with paragraph 13 of this
order, this court shall place this action upon the trial calendar as provided by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 40 and shall require all pre-trial procedures as it sees fit.
[Id., ¶ 14.]
What’s more, the consent order’s preamble refers to the letter briefs filed by the parties
regarding the propriety of the proposed consent order [DE 57 & 58], and these briefs strongly
suggest that the parties did not intend for the consent order to resolve the action in its entirety.
For example, Defendants’ letter brief specifically contemplates entering into a separate consent
order for purposes of disposing of the case in its entirety:
The proposed Stipulated Consent Preliminary Injunction Order provides for a
preliminary injunction which will last for eighteen months. . . . At the end of that
time, the parties can dismiss the action, enter into a final Consent Order disposing
of the case, or request that the matter be set for trial.
[DE 57 at 1; emphasis added.]
Likewise, Plaintiffs’ letter brief contemplates that the consent order will dispose of the
issues raised in the preliminary injunction motion, but not the case as a whole:
Although the parties were unable to reach a settlement disposing of the case, they
were able to reach an agreement with respect to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunctive relief and the relief that should be ordered.
[DE 58 at 2.]
In sum, nothing in the language of the consent order appears to warrant dismissal of the
case in its entirety under the circumstances presented here. And the parties’ letter briefs further
support that the parties did not intend that the action would be dismissed in its entirety at the end
of the consent order’s term, unless dismissal were by consent or for want of prosecution, neither
of which is present here.
4
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [DE 79] is DENIED. This
case is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein to supervise the
discovery that Plaintiffs indicate is needed for determining how and under what terms this case
should be disposed, and for all other pre-trial matters.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: August 31, 2011
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?