Baddoo v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER and OPINION denying 3 motion for stay of administrative action. Signed on 11/02/2011 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Will-Fees, Eva)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

EMMANUEL BADDOO, d/b/a
Crossland International Market,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-0939-CV-W-ODS

ORDER AND OPINION DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Plaintiff, who owns and operates Crossland International Market, was
permanently disqualified from the Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program). This
disqualification prevents Plaintiff from accepting SNAP benefits in exchange for goods.
Plaintiff initiated this action to challenge the Food and Nutrition Service’s determination
that he was trafficking in SNAP benefits, and filed a motion to stay the disqualification
pending judicial review. The Government has responded; Plaintiff has not filed Reply
Suggestions in support of his request and the time for doing so has passed. After
considering the parties’ arguments, the motion (Doc. # 3) is denied.
Plaintiff invokes 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(17) as supporting his request for a stay.
However, the very next provision makes clear that section 2023(a)(17) does not apply to
administrative decisions permanently disqualifying a retailer from the SNAP program,
but rather applies only to temporary disqualifications. It provides that “[n]otwithstanding
any other provision of this subsection, any permanent disqualification of a retail food
store or wholesale food concern under paragraph (3) or (4) of section 2021(b) shall be
effective from the date of receipt of the notice of disqualification.” 7 U.S.C. §
2023(a)(18). Implementing regulations confirm this distinction: a temporary
disqualification can be stayed, but a permanent disqualification cannot. See 7 C.F.R. §

279.7(d). This is significant because Plaintiff was permanently disqualified pursuant to
section 2021(b)(3)(B) – so the provisions for a stay do not apply. See also 7 C.F.R. §
278.6(e)(1). The Court lacks the power to grant a stay, so Plaintiff’s request for a stay
must be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: November 2, 2011

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT