Gilmore et al v. Bouboulis et al
Filing
51
DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part # 13 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and granting in part and denying in part # 33 Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint. Based upon Def endants''motion for judgment on the pleadings, the following claims are DISMISSED: (1) Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief (asserting violations of SNAP statutes and implementing regulations) as to Defendants Otsego County, Bouboulis, a nd Muehl; (2) Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief (asserting a due process violation pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution) in its entirety; and (3) Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for Relief (asserting a due proces s violation pursuant to Article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution) in its entirety. Based upon Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint, and in accordance with Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint, the following claims are DISMISSED from this action: (1) Plaintiffs' Third Claim for Relief (asserting violations of the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States C onstitution) in its entirety; and (2) Plaintiffs' Fourth Claim for Relief (asserting a violation of the right to counsel pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution) in its entirety. As of the date of the fi ling of this Decision and Order, the following claims remain PENDING in this action: (1) Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief (asserting violations of SNAP statutes and its implementing regulations) as to Defendant Hunt only; and (2) Plaintiffs 39; Sixth Claim for Relief (asserting violations of 18 N.Y.C.R.R., Parts 348 and 359 and New York Social Services Law § 134-a). Plaintiffs shall, within 7 days from the date of this Decision and Order, file a revised, signed Amended Complaint th at omits the claims dismissed by, and asserts only the claims permitted by, this Decision and Order. Defendants are directed to file an answer to Plaintiffs complaint within 14 days after the filing of the Amended Complaint. This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Peebles for the setting of pretrial deadlines. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 8/29/16. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
HEIDI GILMORE; and JASON GILMORE,
Plaintiffs,
3:15-CV-0686
(GTS/DEP)
v.
EVE BOUBOULIS, in her individual and
official capacity as Commissioner for the Otsego
County Department of Social Services; MERRITT
HUNT, in his individual and official capacity as
Investigator for the Otsego County District
Attorney's Office; JOHN M. MUEHL, in his
individual and official capacity as Otsego County
District Attorney; and OTSEGO COUNTY,
Defendants.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL
NEW YORK
Counsel for Plaintiffs
472 South Saline Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, New York 13202
DENNIS A. KAUFMAN, ESQ.
SAMUEL C. YOUNG, ESQ.
WILLA S. PAYNE, ESQ.
LAW FIRM OF FRANK W. MILLER
Counsel for Defendants
6575 Kirkville Road
East Syracuse, New York 13057
FRANK W. MILLER, ESQ.
CHRISTOPHER MILITELLO, ESQ
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Heidi Gilmore and Jason
Gilmore (collectively, "Plaintiffs") against Otsego County and three of its employees
(collectively, "Defendants"), is Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (Dkt. No. 13) and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to file an Amended
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (Dkt. Nos. 33-34). For the reasons set forth below,
Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs' cross-motion is granted in
part and denied in part.
I.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A.
Plaintiffs' Complaint
Generally, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges as follows.
1.
Otsego County's Investigation and Prosecution of Welfare Fraud
Cases
Defendant Eve Bouboulis ("Bouboulis") is Commissioner of the Otsego County
Department of Social Services ("DSS"), and Defendant John Muehl ("Muehl") is the Otsego
County District Attorney ("OCDA"). (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 7-8 [Plfs.' Compl.].) DSS and the OCDA
are signatory to a written agreement, the Investigative Unit Operations Plan ("IUOP"), pursuant
to which DSS delegated to the OCDA "the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting
alleged welfare fraud in Otsego County." (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9; accord, Dkt. No. 1 at 31-62 ["Exhibit
A"].)1 Defendant Merritt Hunt ("Hunt") is a police officer and an investigator in the OCDA's
Special Investigations Unit ("SIU"), the unit tasked with investigating and prosecuting alleged
welfare fraud under the IUOP.2 (Id. at ¶ 10.)
1
References to Plaintiffs' Complaint by pagination refer to the pagination
generated by CM/ECF, rather than the non-consecutive pagination reflected in the exhibits to
Plaintiffs' Complaint.
2
The Court notes that, although Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to Exhibit A thereto
generally as the "IUOP," the first page of Exhibit A is titled simply "AGREEMENT," dated
January 14, 2014, and references terms reflected in numerous exhibits attached to the
"AGREEMENT." (Dkt. No. 1 at 32.) "Exhibit B" to that document is itself titled "Investigative
Unit Operations Plan" and provides, among other things, that OCDA's Special Investigations
Unit is "responsible for the investigation and prosecution of allegations of client fraud" with
-2-
Under the terms of the IUOP, the SIU (comprised of an assistant district attorney, three
"DA investigators," and a "DSS clerk") is "[t]he organizational unit responsible for the
investigation and prosecution of allegations of client fraud," including, among other things,
investigation of "Intentional Program Violations" ("IPV") and performance of "front end
detection visits." (Dkt. No. 1 at 41.) With respect to how allegations of possible fraud are
processed, the IUOP further provides that
[a]llegations made to the Department are reported to the SIU by
written complaints by the public, written referral by staff and
phone contacts directly to the Unit. Determinations are made by
SIU through research and interviews of all pertinent parties.
Information gathered is reviewed with the District Attorney and a
decision made as to the disposition of the compliant; i.e.:
unsubstantiated, IPV, inadvertent Household Error,
Disqualification Consent Agreement and/or prosecution.
(Id.)
2.
Plaintiffs' Employment and Application for Benefits
Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, have four children and reside in Otsego County,
New York. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 5-6 [Plfs.' Compl.].) At all times relevant to Plaintiffs' claims,
Plaintiff Jason Gilmore ("Mr. Gilmore") worked full-time at a retail store, and Plaintiff Heidi
Gilmore ("Mrs. Gilmore") was a stay-at-home mother. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-60.) Mrs. Gilmore also
"occasionally generat[ed] additional income" by selling jewelry that she made on a "craft
website," Etsy. (Id. at ¶ 60.) The time that Mrs. Gilmore committed to jewelry making
"fluctuated unpredictably," but, when "actively engaged in" jewelry sales through Etsy, Mrs.
Gilmore reported her income to DSS. (Id. at ¶¶ 62-63.)
respect to "Temporary Assistance, Safety Net Assistance, Food Stamps, Medical Assistance,
Child Care Subsidy, and Intentional Program Violations[.]" (Id. at 38.) For the sake of clarity,
and consistent with Plaintiffs' Complaint and the parties' memoranda of law, unless otherwise
noted, the Court refers to these documents generally as the "IUOP."
-3-
"During the first part of February" 2014, Mrs. Gilmore "sporadically worked on"
completing an application for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits
(i.e., food stamps)3 for Plaintiffs' family. (Id. at ¶¶ 65-66.) Plaintiffs did not have internet access
at home, and so Mrs. Gilmore submitted a paper application for SNAP benefits. (Id. at ¶¶ 6768.) At the time of submission, Plaintiffs had two sources of income, both of which Mrs.
Gilmore included on the SNAP application: (1) Mr. Gilmore's employment income, and (2) child
support that was "supposed to" total $50 per month, but that was not "always reliably paid." (Id.
at ¶ 69.)
After she submitted the application, but before the end of February 2014, Mrs. Gilmore
"obtained internet access" and was able to "re-open her Etsy account and resume trying to sell
jewelry when time permitted." (Id. at ¶ 70.) Her income from selling jewelry "fluctuated and
was not reasonably certain." (Id.) In any event, however, the "countable income generated by"
Mrs. Gilmore's jewelry sales never raised Plaintiffs' household income above 130% of the
federal poverty level (i.e., an amount that would have required Plaintiffs' household to report a
change in income during their benefit certification period). (Id. at ¶¶ 31-32, 71.) Mrs. Gilmore
"made numerous attempts to both report and obtain reporting worksheets during the certification
period," although Plaintiffs "had no legal duty to report any of the income she generated." (Id. at
¶ 72.)
3
See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2013(a) ("[T]he Secretary [of Agriculture] is authorized to
formulate and administer a supplemental nutrition assistance program under which, at the
request of the State agency, eligible households within the State shall be provided an opportunity
to obtain a more nutritious diet through the issuance to them of an allotment . . . .").
-4-
3.
Mrs. Gilmore's July 2014 Meeting with Hunt
In or around July 2014, Mrs. Gilmore received a letter from Hunt, bearing OCDA's
letterhead, that advised her that DSS "has referred [her] file to" OCDA and directed her to appear
on July 9, 2014, to meet with OCDA investigators. (Id. at ¶¶ 73-74; accord, Dkt. No. 1 at 74
["Exhibit D"].) Mrs. Gilmore appeared at the meeting as directed, and Hunt asked her if she
knew why she had been summoned. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 76.) Mrs. Gilmore responded that "she
thought she needed to provide tax return documents and her income from the first half of 2014
because she had difficulty reporting it to the agency," and she "explained [her] attempts to"
submit self-employment worksheets. (Id. at ¶¶ 76-77.) Mrs. Gilmore provided Hunt with
requested income documentation and "expressed concern over why she was there and what
would happen to the benefits that were on their card." (Id. at ¶¶ 78, 80.) Hunt instructed her to
"spend what [she received] in Food Stamps because they will not be able to take them back once
they are put on your card." (Id. at ¶ 80.)
4.
Investigation of Plaintiffs' Employment Income
At some point after the meeting, Hunt called Mrs. Gilmore and requested "a monthly
breakdown of her income received in 2014," and, although she had already provided income
information during the meeting, Mrs. Gilmore provided the accounting of her income as
requested. (Id. at ¶¶ 81-82.) Thereafter, on September 4, 2014, Hunt submitted a "Request for
Action/Services" form to DSS, requesting assistance from DSS "to determine if the income
provided by Mrs. Gilmore resulted 'in an overgrant.'" (Id. at ¶ 83; accord, Dkt. No. 1 at 76
["Exhibit E"].) DSS determined that Plaintiffs received an overpayment of benefits in the
amount of $1,045. (Id. at ¶ 85; accord, Dkt. No. 1 at 80 ["Exhibit G"].)
-5-
5.
Plaintiffs' November 2014 Meeting with Hunt
In November 2014, Plaintiffs received another letter from the OCDA "that mirrored" the
letter from June 2014 but was addressed to both Plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶ 87.) The letter stated that
Plaintiffs' "file" had been "referred from [DSS] to the [OCDA's] office for investigation." (Id. at
¶ 88.) Moreover, the letter directed Plaintiffs to appear for a meeting with OCDA investigators
on November 19, 2014, and stated that the failure to respond to the letter "may result in your
arrest and subsequent prosecution" and that no children were permitted to accompany Plaintiffs
to the appointment. (Id. at ¶¶ 89-91.) The letter did not advise Plaintiffs that they could "bring a
lawyer or other representative with them to the meeting" or indicate "the reasons for the
investigation or the reason for the proposed meeting[.]" (Id. at ¶¶ 92-93.)
On November 19, 2014, Plaintiffs attended the meeting as directed. (Id. at ¶ 95.) When
they are arrived, Plaintiffs were ushered through a metal detector and eventually escorted to a
small office where they met with Hunt behind a closed doorf. (Id. at ¶¶ 98-100.) Hunt asked
Plaintiffs "if they could tell him why they were there," and, on the desk in front of Plaintiffs, Mr.
Gilmore recognized a document pertaining to his employment earnings that reflected that a
check was issued to him in the amount of $1,800. (Id. at ¶¶ 103-04.) Mr. Gilmore stated that, if
the meeting concerned that "employer statement," he could provide Hunt with "an updated sheet
and check" that would establish that the check was a clerical error and that he never received a
check for $1,800. (Id. at ¶ 104.) Hunt stated that Mr. Gilmore's "income was not the reason for
the meeting," but that Plaintiffs "were being charged with welfare fraud because 'they had
received more food stamps than they were due.'" (Id. at ¶¶ 105, 109.)
When they learned that they "were being charged with fraud," Plaintiffs "were terrified."
(Id. at ¶ 112.) Hunt then referred Plaintiffs "to [an]other document on the table," which was a
-6-
Disqualification Consent Agreement ("DCA"), and informed Plaintiffs that "they needed to sign
the DCA and pay back the benefits they received." (Id. at ¶¶ 52-53, 113.) The DCA stated that
Plaintiffs were overpaid SNAP benefits in the amount of $1,045 based on Mrs. Gilmore's
"fail[ure] to report self employment income." (Id. at ¶ 114; accord, Dkt. No. 1 at 82 ["Exhibit
H," Plaintiffs' DCA, which states, in part, that "Heidi Gilmore failed to report self employment
income on SNAP application dated 2/24/14 which resulted in the receipt of benefits to which the
household was not entitled for the period of 2/1/14 - 7/31/14."].) Hunt stated to Plaintiffs, "I
don't think you intentionally committed fraud but since I can't verify your story you need to sign
this paper." (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 115.)
Mrs. Gilmore asked if Plaintiffs "could speak to a third party to resolve the matter," or if
they could "appeal," and Hunt responded that, although Plaintiffs "could call the DA," there was
"no reason to" do so because "nine times out of ten they win these cases" and Plaintiffs were
"better off if they just sign[ed] the papers." (Id. at ¶ 117.) Hunt stated that, if Plaintiffs refused
to sign the DCA that day, he would call the OCDA's office "and a warrant would issue for their
arrest." (Id. at ¶ 119.) Hunt then "leaned back in his chair and put his arms up [and] behind his
head," and Plaintiffs observed that Hunt "was armed with a gun." (Id. at ¶ 118.)
Mr. Gilmore "felt helpless and angry" because Hunt had not provided Plaintiffs with any
proof that they had committed fraud or "given them an opportunity to speak with an attorney."
(Id. at ¶ 121.) However, if Plaintiffs refused to sign the DCA and were arrested, Mr. Gilmore
feared that he would likely lose his job and the family would lose its home. (Id. at ¶ 120.)
Moreover, if Mrs. Gilmore was arrested, Plaintiffs would have no childcare. (Id.) Mr. Gilmore
stated that it appeared that Plaintiffs "would have no choice but to sign" the DCA, and Hunt
-7-
informed Plaintiffs that, if they did sign the DCA, "their kids would still receive SNAP" benefits.
(Id. at ¶¶ 122-23.) Although they believed that they had not committed fraud, Plaintiffs signed
the DCA. (Id. at ¶ 124.) Hunt gave Plaintiffs copies of the executed DCA as well as another
document, the "Notice of Consequences of Disqualification Consent Agreement" ("Notice of
Consequences") and escorted them to the exit. (Id. at ¶ 127.)
On the same date, DSS sent Plaintiffs a "Notice of Disqualification," informing them that
they were disqualified from receiving SNAP benefits because they had consented to
disqualification. (Id. at ¶ 128.) Soon thereafter, Plaintiffs also received a "Notice of Decision,"
informing that "the entire household was now ineligible for benefits due to being 'over income.'"
(Id. at ¶ 130.) After they left the November 19, 2014, meeting with Hunt, Plaintiffs were "able
to read through the DCA and Notice of Consequences for the first time," and learned that the
DCA contained telephone numbers for "Legal Aid" and the public defender's office. (Id. at ¶
132.) Hunt failed to inform Plaintiffs of these resources during the meeting. (Id.) Plaintiffs
attempted to contact "Legal Aid" but eventually realized that the phone number was outdated.
(Id. at ¶ 133.) Moreover, although DSS "updated the notices related to public assistance," DSS's
"fraud notices" did not contain a correct address and telephone number for Legal Services of
Central New York, Inc. (Plaintiffs' counsel in this case), rendering it difficult for Plaintiffs (as
well as others faced with executing a DCA) to obtain legal assistance. (Id. at ¶ 134.)
On the advice of counsel, Plaintiffs requested a fair hearing in light of the fact that DSS'
"procedures" did not conform with federal regulations, but DSS responded that Plaintiffs were
not entitled to a fair hearing because they had signed the DCA voluntarily. (Id. at ¶ 136; accord,
Dkt. No. 1 at 85 ["Exhibit I," Fair Hearing Summary].) Moreover, DSS "refused" Plaintiffs'
-8-
"numerous requests" for access to the evidence against them; it did not provide Plaintiffs with
advance written notification of the consequences of consenting to disqualification as part of a
deferred adjudication of welfare charges; did not provide Plaintiffs with the DCA for review 10
days prior their meeting with Hunt as required by law; and it "failed to take into consideration"
the fact that Plaintiffs' household was "subject to six-month reporting rules" and thus had not
improperly failed to report income. (Id. at ¶¶ 137-143.)
Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert the following six "Claims For Relief"
(generally referred to herein as "claims"): (1) a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
Defendants violated several procedural requirements under SNAP's statutory provisions and 7
C.F.R. § 273; (2) a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983that Defendants violated their procedural
due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by, inter alia, requiring them to appear at
meetings under the threat of arrest, failing to notify them of their right to be represented by an
attorney, and obtaining their signature on the DCA without a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
waiver of their rights; (3) a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Defendants violated their
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966), by subjecting them to a custodial interrogation and coercing them to unknowingly admit
to an IPV without advising them of their right to counsel and right against self-incrimination; (4)
a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Defendants violated their right to counsel under the
Sixth Amendment when proffering the DCA, which was "the functional equivalent of
commencing prosecution"; (5) a claim that, for the same reasons cited in support of their
procedural due process claim under the United States Constitution, Defendants violated their
right to due process under Article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution; and (6) a claim that
-9-
Defendants violated their rights pursuant to 18 N.Y.C.R.R., Parts 348 and 359, and New York
Social Services Law § 134-a.4 (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 146-76.)
With regard to relief, Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, the following: (1) a judgment declaring
that the "policies and practices employed by Defendants" in procuring the DCA from Plaintiffs
violated their federal and state constitutional rights, as well as "federal and state law and
regulations"; (2) an order enjoining Defendants from (a) unlawfully "disqualifying Plaintiffs or
other similarly situated individuals accused of SNAP fraud" and (b) "misusing" DCAs to
"illegally divest" Plaintiffs and other "accused individuals" of their right to disqualification
hearings under 7 C.F.R. § 273.16 and 18 N.Y.C.R.R., Part 359; (3) an order directing Bouboulis
to restore benefits that were "erroneously withheld" from Plaintiffs and to prospectively
determine their eligibility for SNAP benefits; (4) an award of compensatory damages in the
amount that they have already repaid pursuant to their repayment agreement, as well as for the
civil rights violations that they have suffered. (Id. at 29, ¶¶ 2-6.)
B.
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Generally, in support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendants argue as
follows: (1) Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims must be dismissed as against Otsego County because
Plaintiffs have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that their constitutional rights were violated
pursuant to an municipal policy, practice or custom (Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1, at 7-9 [Defs.' Memo.
of Law]); (2) Muehl enjoys absolute immunity from suit because his actions (to the extent any
are alleged) were prosecutorial in nature (id. at 10-11); (3) Hunt enjoys absolutely immunity
4
Although Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to Social Services Law § 134(a) (which
contains no subsection [a]), the Court assumes that Plaintiffs intend to refer to Social Services
Law § 134-a.
-10-
from suit with respect to Plaintiffs' second, third, fourth, and fifth claims because his actions
were prosecutorial in nature (id. at 11-13); (4) even if Hunt's actions were investigative in nature,
he enjoys qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs' first and sixth claims because those
claims do not allege violations of clearly established federal law (id. at 14-16); (5) Bouboulis
enjoys qualified immunity because Plaintiffs do not allege facts plausibly suggesting that she
took any action that violated established statutory or constitutional principles (id. at 16); (6)
Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims as against Muehl and Bouboulis must be dismissed because Plaintiffs
have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that either was personally involved with respect to
any of the conduct alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint (id. at 16-18); (7) Plaintiffs' second and fifth
claims (asserting due process violations) must be dismissed because no pre-deprivation relief
was conceivable based on Plaintiffs' decision to execute the DCA rather than face potential
prosecution for welfare fraud, and Article 78 of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules
provides an adequate state post-deprivation process by which Plaintiffs could have sought relief
for Defendants' alleged failure to follow pre-deprivation procedures (id. at 18-22); and (8)
Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth claims must be dismissed because they failed to timely file a notice of
claim pursuant to New York General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i, and those claims are
therefore not properly before the Court (id. at 22-23.)
C.
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for
Leave to Amend Their Complaint
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and, in so doing,
cross-move for leave to file an Amended Complaint, the well-pleaded allegations of which,
Plaintiffs argue, cure any pleading defect in their original Complaint. (See generally Dkt. No. 34
[Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of Law].) More specifically, Plaintiffs argue that (a) they should be
-11-
permitted to amend their Complaint to augment their factual allegations, particularly with respect
to the individual Defendants' personal involvement and "the customs and policies . . . which gave
rise to [Plaintiffs'] claims," and (b) Defendants will not suffer any resulting prejudice from the
amendment. (Id. at 3-5.)
1.
Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint
In their Proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC"), in addition to the factual allegations set
forth in their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege as follows.
DSS is legally responsible for investigating cases of "intentional program violations
under the SNAP program" in Otsego County under both federal and state regulations. (Dkt. No.
33, Attach. 4, at ¶ 146 [Plfs.' PAC].) The Commissioner of DSS delegated those investigatory
responsibilities to the OCDA under the IUOP and a "DA Agreement,"5 and Muehl and Bouboulis
and/or their predecessors, "as final policymakers," executed the terms of those written
agreements. (Id. at ¶¶ 147-48.)
While "[c]ounty social workers" are "trained in often complex federal and state
regulations on benefit eligibility and reporting requirements," neither Hunt nor the other OCDA
investigators "had an understanding of [f]ederal or [s]tate rules on reporting and selfemployment income due to a deliberate lack of training by Otsego County." (Id. at ¶ 152.) By
presenting Plaintiffs with the DCA, Hunt "was enforcing the DA Agreement and IUOP adopted
as policy by Otsego County." (Id. at ¶ 153.) Moreover, by "promulgating, executing, and
adopting" those written agreements, Muehl, Bouboulis, and Otsego County did three things: (1)
5
It is unclear to what Plaintiffs refer as the "DA Agreement," or if that document is
distinct from the IUOP documents attached to their Complaint.
-12-
"authorized Investigator Hunt, rather than [DSS], to conduct the investigation into [Plaintiffs']
application for benefits"; (2) authorized Hunt to determine whether Plaintiffs' alleged error in
reporting their income was merely inadvertent household error, agency error, or an IPV; and (3)
sanctioned Hunt's "failure to give the DCA and notice of consequences . . . within a reasonable
time frame before offering the DCA." (Id. at ¶¶ 154-56.) Otsego County, Muehl, and Bouboulis
"intentionally or recklessly failed to provide adequate training and supervision to [OCDA]
investigators," including Hunt, with respect to properly determining whether a SNAP applicant's
or recipient's actions constituted inadvertent error, agency error, or an IPV. (Id. at ¶¶ 157, 168.)
Muehl and Bouboulis were aware of, and condoned, Hunt's "unlawful practices," and, indeed,
"all fraud allegations in Otsego County are resolved in the same manner as experienced by"
Plaintiffs and thus suffer from the same procedural deficiencies. (Id. at ¶¶ 161-62, 165-67.) By
"promulgating and adopting the policy," Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights. (Id. at ¶ 170.)
With respect to their claims, Plaintiffs' PAC proposes to withdraw their third and fourth
claims, asserting violations of their right to counsel and right against self-incrimination pursuant
to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively. (Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4.)
Plaintiffs' do not seek to add any claims or parties.
2.
Plaintiffs' Arguments
In conjunction with their PAC, and in opposition to Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings, Plaintiffs argue as follows: (1) they have adequately alleged the existence of a
municipal policy, custom, or practice pursuant to which their constitutional rights were violated
in three ways, specifically (a) the Otsego County Board of Representatives adopted the IUOP,
-13-
(b) Muehl and Bouboulis were policymakers with final policymaking authority, and their
decision to enter into and execute the IUOP is sufficient to render Otsego County potentially
liable for the violations asserted by Plaintiffs, and (c) it was "and may still be" the ordinary
custom of DSS and OCDA to investigate welfare fraud in the same manner as that employed in
Plaintiffs' case (Dkt. No. 34 at 5-10 [Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of Law]); (2) neither absolute immunity
nor qualified immunity precludes Plaintiffs from pursuing injunctive or declaratory relief as
against the individual Defendants (id. at 10-11, 14); (3) Hunt and Muehl do not enjoy absolute
immunity because they were engaged in investigatory actions rather than prosecutorial actions
(particularly in light of the terms of the IUOP documents, which delegated investigatory
responsibilities to the OCDA), and a prosecution had not yet commenced (id. at 11-13); (4) the
individual Defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs' first and sixth
claims because the federal and state statutes cited, which govern the application and eligibility
for food stamp benefits, are "hardly ambiguous" (id. at 14-18); (5) Muehl and Bouboulis were
directly and personally involved in the violation of Plaintiffs' rights because (a) they were both
policymakers with respect to "the official policies followed here," (b) Bouboulis "approved the
investigation of the Gilmores and failed to place the proper contact information for Legal
Services on the 'Notice and Consequences of the DCA,'" and (c) Muehl signed "the DA
Agreement" and "approved of" the actions of Hunt and other OCDA investigators in pursuing
the investigation (id. at 18); (6) Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a violation of their due process
rights in that (a) SNAP benefits are a statutorily created entitled protected by the Due Process
Clauses of the United States and New York Constitutions, (b) Defendants violated existing pretermination processes as a matter of municipal custom and policy, and (c) under the
-14-
circumstances, CPLR Article 78 does not provide an adequate post-deprivation procedure
because Plaintiffs' deprivations resulted from "unlawful policies and procedures," rather than "a
random, unauthorized act of a governmental official" (id. at 19-21); and (7) Plaintiffs' failure to
file a notice of claim with respect to their state law claims does not require dismissal of those
claims because they primarily seek injunctive and declaratory relief, and their prayer for
monetary damages is ancillary and incidental to the equitable relief sought (id. at 21-22).
D.
Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend
Their Complaint
Generally, in their reply to Plaintiffs' opposition, and in their opposition to Plaintiffs'
cross-motion, Defendants argue as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend their
Complaint should be denied because the PAC does not remedy the deficiencies in the original
Complaint and amendment would therefore be futile (Dkt. No. 36 at 3-4 [Defs.' Reply Memo. of
Law]); (2) Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded a claim pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), based on a municipal policy, custom, or practice because (a) they
have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that (i) such a policy, custom, or practice existed, (ii)
their alleged deprivations were caused by the policy, custom, or practice, or (iii) "the tactics they
allegedly experienced" were employed with respect to "any other SNAP recipients suspected of"
an IPV, (b) the IUOP "framework" documents do not support Plaintiffs' claims, and Plaintiffs do
not connect their factual allegations to any provisions of those documents (id. at 4-5), and (c) the
regulations cited by Plaintiffs do not proscribe DSS's delegation of investigatory duties related to
welfare fraud to the OCDA (id. at 4-8); (3) Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded a Monell claim
based on a failure to train because (a) their allegations regarding the alleged failure to train Hunt
-15-
and other OCDA investigators is conclusory and does not satisfy the elements of such a claim,
(b) their allegation that Hunt was not trained to determine whether an IPV occurred is undercut
by the terms of the IUOP, which provide that social services employees (and not OCDA
investigators) review "a suspect application" in the first instance, before it is referred to the SIU,
and (c) they have not pleaded any non-conclusory facts from which it may be reasonably inferred
that other welfare fraud cases were handled in the same manner as their case (id. at 8-11); (4)
aside from their second claim (sounding in due process), Plaintiffs' claims do not assert a
violation of their federal constitutional rights and thus are not actionable under § 1983 (id. at 1112); (5) Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that Bouboulis and Muehl were
personally involved in their alleged constitutional deprivations, and Bouboulis was not signatory
to the IUOP (id. at 12-13, 15-17); (6) Plaintiffs lack standing to obtain declaratory or injunctive
relief under § 1983 because they have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that there is a
likelihood that they will suffer future injury (i.e., the same allegedly coercive and deficient
processes in connection with a SNAP IPV investigation) (id. at 13-15); (7) Muehl and Hunt
enjoy absolute immunity from suit (id. at 16-17); (8) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts plausibly
suggesting that Muehl or Hunt violated a declaratory decree such that declaratory relief might be
available as against them (id. at 18-19); (9) Bouboulis and Hunt enjoy qualified immunity
because the SNAP statutes and implementing regulations do not create a private right of action
(id. at 19); (10) Plaintiffs have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that they were deprived of
procedural due process because (a) all of the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint and PAC relate
solely to the conduct of Hunt and (b) they could have challenged the loss of SNAP benefits by
way of a CPLR Article 78 proceeding (id. at 20-22); (11) Plaintiffs' state law claims must be
-16-
dismissed because (a) Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims grounded in the New York State Constitution and
state regulations are subject to state law notice of claim requirements, and Plaintiffs failed to
timely serve a notice of claim, and (b) Plaintiffs' assertions that the "primary purpose" of
asserting their claims was to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, rather than monetary relief, is
"self-serving and unconvincing" (id. at 23-24).
II.
RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Legal Standard Governing Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings
"The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical
to that of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim." Patel v. Contemporary Classics of
Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2001) (collecting cases); accord, Hayden v. Paterson,
594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the Court will review Defendants' motion under
the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss.
It has long been understood that a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), can be based on one or both of two grounds:
(1) a challenge to the “sufficiency of the pleading” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); or (2) a
challenge to the legal cognizability of the claim. Jackson v. Onondaga Cty., 549 F. Supp. 2d
204, 211, nn. 15-16 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (McAvoy, J., adopting Report-Recommendation on de
novo review).
Because such dismissals are often based on the first ground, a few words regarding that
ground are appropriate. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). In the Court’s view, this tension between
-17-
permitting a "short and plain statement" and requiring that the statement "show[]" an entitlement
to relief is often at the heart of misunderstandings that occur regarding the pleading standard
established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
On the one hand, the Supreme Court has long characterized the “short and plain”
pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) as "simplified" and "liberal." Jackson, 549 F.
Supp. 2d at 212, n.20 (citing Supreme Court case). On the other hand, the Supreme Court has
held that, by requiring the above-described “showing,” the pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2) requires that the pleading contain a statement that "give[s] the defendant fair notice of
what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at
212, n.17 (citing Supreme Court cases) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has explained that such fair notice has the important purpose of
"enabl[ing] the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial" and "facilitat[ing] a proper decision
on the merits" by the court. Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 212, n.18 (citing Supreme Court cases);
Rusyniak v. Gensini, 629 F. Supp. 2d 203, 213 & n.32 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (Suddaby, J.) (citing
Second Circuit cases). For this reason, as one commentator has correctly observed, the "liberal"
notice pleading standard "has its limits." 2 Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.34[1][b] at 12-61 (3d
ed. 2003). For example, numerous Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions exist holding
that a pleading has failed to meet the "liberal" notice pleading standard. Rusyniak, 629 F. Supp.
2d at 213, n.22 (citing Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129
S. Ct. 1937, 1949-52 (2009).
Most notably, in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court reversed an appellate
decision holding that a complaint had stated an actionable antitrust claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1.
-18-
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). In doing so, the Court "retire[d]" the
famous statement by the Court in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), that "a complaint
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."
Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1968-69. Rather than turn on the conceivability of an actionable claim,
the Court clarified, the "fair notice" standard turns on the plausibility of an actionable claim. Id.
at 1965-74. The Court explained that, while this does not mean that a pleading need "set out in
detail the facts upon which [the claim is based]," it does mean that the pleading must contain at
least "some factual allegation[s]." Id. at 1965. More specifically, the "[f]actual allegations must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level [to a plausible level]," assuming
(of course) that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Id.
As for the nature of what is "plausible," the Supreme Court explained that "[a] claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at
1949. "[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense. . . . [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged–but it has not show[n]–that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Id. at 1950 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, while
the plausibility standard "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully," id., it "does not impose a probability requirement." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
-19-
Because of this requirement of factual allegations plausibly suggesting an entitlement to
relief, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint
is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by merely conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Similarly, a pleading that only "tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement"
will not suffice. Id. (internal citations and alterations omitted). Rule 8 "demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (citations omitted).
B.
Legal Standard Governing Motions for Leave to Amend
A motion for leave to amend a complaint is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which states
that leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2);
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Manson v. Stacescu, 11 F.3d 1127, 1133 (2d Cir.
1993). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), leave to amend a complaint should be freely given
in the absence of any apparent or declared reason to not grant leave to amend, such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; S.S.
Silberblatt, Inc. v. E. Harlem Pilot Block–Bldg. 1 Hous., 608 F.2d 28, 42 (2d Cir. 1979); Meyer
v. First Franklin Loan Servs, Inc., 08-CV-1332, 2010 WL 277090, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 19,
2010) (Suddaby, J.).
"Mere delay, . . . absent a showing of bad faith or undue prejudice, does not provide a
basis for a district court to deny the right to amend." Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344,
350 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). "In determining what constitutes prejudice, [courts]
-20-
consider whether the assertion of the new claim would: (i) require the opponent to expend
significant additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (ii) significantly delay
the resolution of the dispute; or (iii) prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another
jurisdiction." Block, 988 F.2d at 350 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
"An amendment to a pleading is futile if the proposed claim could not withstand a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)." Annunziato v. Collecto, Inc., 293 F.R.D. 329,
333 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 [2d Cir.
2002]). A proposed amendment is therefore not futile if it states a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See Annunziato, 293 F.R.D. at 333 (citations omitted). As the Second Circuit has
explained, "[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive . . . it is
not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend." Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d
129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); accord, Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL
599355, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) ("[T]he court need not grant leave to amend
where it appears that amendment would prove to be unproductive or futile.") (citation omitted);
see also Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (denial not abuse of discretion where amendment would be
futile); Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991) ("Of course,
where a plaintiff is unable to allege any fact sufficient to support its claim, a complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice.") (citation omitted); Health-Chem Corp. v. Baker, 915 F.2d 805, 810
(2d Cir. 1990) ("[W]here . . . there is no merit in the proposed amendments, leave to amend
should be denied").6
6
The Court notes that two Second Circuit cases exist reciting the standard as being
that the Court should grant leave to amend "unless the court can rule out any possibility,
however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim."
-21-
C.
Legal Standards Governing Plaintiff’s Claims
Because the parties to this action have demonstrated, in their memoranda of law, an
accurate understanding of the relevant points of law contained in the legal standards governing
Plaintiff’s claims in this action, the Court will not recite, in their entirety, those legal standards in
this Decision and Order, which (again) is intended primarily for the review of the parties. (See
generally Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1 [Defs.' Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 34 [Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of
Law]; Dkt. No. 36 [Defs.' Reply Memo. of Law].)
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Whether Plaintiffs' PAC Alleges Facts Plausibly Suggesting that Defendants
Violated Their Due Process Rights Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution and/or Article 1, § 6 of the New York State
Constitution
After carefully considering the matter, the Court answers this question in the negative for
the reasons stated in Defendants' memoranda of law. (Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1, at 18-22 [Defs.'
Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 36 at 20-22 [Defs.' Reply Memo. of Law].) To those reasons, the
Court adds two points.
First, Plaintiffs' New York State constitutional due process claim–premised on nearly
identical factual allegations as their federal procedural due process claim–is brought to allege
constitutional violations that can be vindicated through more specific claims pursuant to the Fifth
Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir. 1999); accord, Abbas v. Dixon, 480
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The problem with these cases is that their "rule out any possibility,
however likely it might be" standard is rooted in the "unless it appears beyond doubt" standard
set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), which was "retire[d]" by the Supreme
Court in Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1969. See Gomez, 171 F.3d at 796 (relying on Branum v. Clark,
927 F.2d 698, 705 [2d Cir. 1991], which relied on Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46). Thus, this
standard does not appear to be an accurate recitation of the governing law.
-22-
and Fourteenth Amendments and § 1983. See Mesa v. City of New York, 09-CV-10464, 2013
WL 31002, at *33 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2013) (granting summary judgment as to state constitutional
due process claim because, inter alia, "New York courts do not always hold that a self-executing
provision of the state constitution supports a claim for damages" and plaintiffs had "asserted
federal analogs of their state constitutional claims under § 1983" as well as state tort claims, each
of which provide civil damage remedies) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);
Bloomingburg Jewish Educ. Ctr. v. Vill. of Bloomingburg, N.Y., 111 F. Supp. 3d 459, 482
(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (explaining that "The New York Constitution's due process, equal protection,
and free exercise protections are essentially coextensive with those provided by the federal
Constitution," collecting cases, and "dismiss[ing] as redundant" plaintiffs' state constitutional
claims "as well as their request for an injunction on state law grounds"); Sherman v. Town of
Chester, 12-CV-0647, 2015 WL 1473430, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) ("[T]here is no
private right of action for violations of the New York State Constitution where, as here,
alternative remedies exist pursuant to, for example, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Article 78."); Wright v.
City of Syracuse, 10-CV-0661, 2014 WL 1293527, at *17 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) (Suddaby,
J.) ("Where claims are brought pursuant to the New York State Constitution that mirror claims
brought under Section 1983, courts in this Circuit have held that there is no private right of
action on the state constitutional claims.") (collecting cases); see also Ken Mar Dev., Inc. v.
Dep't of Pub. Works of City of Saratoga Springs, 53 A.D.3d 1020, 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d
Dep't 2008) (dismissing equal protection claim brought under New York State Constitution
because "the injunctive and declaratory relief available to petitioner pursuant to CPLR article 78
provides an adequate alternative remedy, rendering the recognition of a constitutional tort
-23-
unnecessary to effectuate the purposes of the State constitutional protections [petitioner]
invokes") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, nowhere in their Complaint, PAC, or briefing on the pending motion or
cross-motion do Plaintiffs argue, allege, or suggest that the Court must or should apply a
different standard with respect to their New York State constitutional claim, or that the New
York State Constitution affords relief that the sources underlying their other claims do not;
moreover, the factual allegations in their Complaint in support of both their federal and state
constitutional claims are substantially identical. (Compare Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 153[a]-[d] with ¶
172[a]-[d] [Plfs.' Compl.]; compare Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶ 178[a]-[d] with ¶ 197[a]-[d]
[PAC].); see also, e.g., DeMartino v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 13-CV-5273, 2016 WL
843283, at *25 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2016) ("Plaintiffs do not provide any reason why the court
should apply a different due process analysis under the New York Constitution[, and n]owhere in
their briefing do they submit that due process protections under the New York Constitution, as
relevant here, exceed the protections available under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment."). The Court therefore concludes that, for this reason alone, Plaintiffs' claim
asserting a violation of the New York State Constitution's due process clause should be
dismissed.7
7
Moreover, "[w]ith some exceptions, New York courts have interpreted the dueprocess guarantees of the New York Constitution and the United States Constitution to be
coextensive–or assumed that they are." Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Madison Cty., 665
F.3d 408, 427 n.13 (2d Cir. 2011) (collecting cases, and further explaining that the Court "need
not decide . . . whether Article I, section 6 of the New York Constitution provides any greater
relief than does the Fourteenth Amendment . . . inasmuch as the OIN has not asserted that it is
entitled to any greater due-process protection under state constitutional law than under federal
constitutional law."). Plaintiffs advance no argument suggesting otherwise. Thus, even if the
existence of a more appropriate, alternative remedy did not point in favor of dismissing
-24-
Second, "[i]n assessing a state or local government's compliance with procedural due
process, [the Second Circuit] distinguish[es] between (1) claims based on established
governmental procedures, and (2) claims based on random or unauthorized acts by public
employees." G.I. Home Dev. Corp. v. Weis, 499. F. App'x 87, 88 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary
order) (citing Rivera-Powell v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458, 465 [2d Cir. 2006]). The
distinction is significant; "[i]n the former case, the government may have to provide a predeprivation hearing because it can predict when the deprivation of a liberty or property interest
will occur," but, in the latter case, "defendants will satisfy procedural due process 'so long as
[they] provide[] [a] meaningful post-deprivation remedy." G.I. Home Dev. Corp., 499 F. App'x
at 88 (quoting Rivera-Powell, 470 F.3d at 465).8
Defendants correctly argue, and Plaintiffs appear to acknowledge, that Article 78 of the
CPLR provides an adequate post-deprivation procedure to satisfy the requirements of
constitutional due process where the deprivation of a property interest, such as to SNAP benefits,
arises from random and unauthorized conduct of a government actor rather than from established
state procedures. (Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1, at 18-19 [Defs.' Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 34 at 19
Plaintiffs' state constitutional due process claim, the Court would conclude that, for the reasons
explained herein, as well as those in Defendants' memoranda of law, Plaintiffs have failed to
allege facts plausibly suggesting that their state constitutional rights were violated, for the same
reasons that their federal constitutional due process claim fails.
8
See also Rivera-Powell, 470 F.3d at 466 ("If we were to determine that the
Board's conduct was random and unauthorized . . . the existence of a meaningful
post-deprivation remedy . . . would automatically satisfy procedural due process. If, on the other
hand, we were to find that the Board's decision was part of an established state procedure, such
that the availability of a post-deprivation remedy would not automatically satisfy due process,
we would merely go on to determine what process was due.") (internal citations omitted).
-25-
[Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of Law].) See also, e.g., McCluskey v. Comm'r of Nassau Cty. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 12-CV-3852, 2013 WL 4780954, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2013) ("Article 78 is
routinely the venue in which adverse food stamp determinations are challenged, often
successfully.") (quoting Banks v. Human Res. Admin., 11-CV-2380, 2013 WL 142374, at *3
[E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013]); Davis v. Proud, 2 F. Supp. 3d 460, 489 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (noting that,
"[i]f a New York applicant wishes to challenge the resolution of her application after a fair
hearing, she must do so by bringing a proceeding in state court under Article 78 of the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules," and, "[m]oreover, under New York State Law, Article 78 is a
form of proceeding available to compel public officials to comply with their responsibilities[]")
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Vapne v. Eggleston, 04-CV-0565, 2004 WL
2754673, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2004) (concluding that an Article 78 proceeding afforded
plaintiff appropriate relief where, "[s]tripped of [its] conclusory constitutional allegations, all
that remains of the complaint is a routine dispute over [the] amount of food stamp benefits issued
by Defendants" (internal quotation marks omitted); see generally Riano v. Town of Schroeppel,
13-CV-0352, 2015 WL 4725359 at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015) (D'Agostino, J.) ("New York
State statutes provide an opportunity for full and complete judicial review of all administrative
determinations. The availability of such judicial review satisfies the dictates of procedural due
process."). Indeed, Plaintiffs advance no argument that an Article 78 proceeding would be
inadequate to satisfy their due process rights if the alleged violation of those rights resulted from
the random and/or unauthorized acts of Hunt (or any other Defendant) in this case.
However, Plaintiffs appear to argue that they were deprived of SNAP benefits not merely
as the result of the unauthorized acts of Hunt in their particular case, but as the result of
-26-
established County procedures for handling suspected cases of IPVs as embodied in the IUOP.
(Dkt. No. 34 at 19-20; accord, Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶ 153 [Plfs.' PAC, alleging that, "(w)hen
presenting the DCA to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Hunt was enforcing the DA Agreement and
IUOP, adopted as policy by Otsego County"].) The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed
to allege facts plausibly suggesting a due process violation arising from established state
procedures, and as a result, further concludes that an Article 78 proceeding would have afforded
sufficient relief to satisfy constitutional due process requirements.
As an initial matter, the crux of Plaintiffs' due process claims is that the Defendants did
not abide by state and federal procedures in securing the executed DCA and disqualifying
Plaintiffs from receiving SNAP benefits for 12 months. Indeed, in their opposition
memorandum of law, Plaintiffs acknowledge that "[t]he processes in federal and state law and
regulations exist." (Dkt. No. 34 at 19.) Plaintiffs do not argue that those provisions are
inadequate, but rather argue that Defendants "chose[] to ignore" those "processes" rather than
follow them. (Id.) See generally Rios v. Town of Huntington Housing Auth., 853 F. Supp. 2d
330, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (denying motion for preliminary injunction and concluding that due
process violation, as alleged, was the result of a "random and unauthorized act" where plaintiff's
claim "boil[ed] down to an allegation that the [public housing authority] improperly decided that
it was not going to be bound by the [hearing officer']s decision, in disregard of" federal
regulations, a claim redressable in an Article 78 proceeding); Chase Grp. Alliance LLC v. City of
New York Dep't of Fin., 620 F.3d 146, 152 n.3 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that plaintiffs' "complaint
is at pains to emphasize that the purported imposition of a lien violated a Housing Court order,"
and thus that they "would have difficulty surmounting the argument that no pre-deprivation
-27-
notice and hearing was required because the deprivation was random and unauthorized").9
Moreover, the IUOP documents attached to Plaintiffs' PAC do not render plausible the
PAC's factual allegations that Defendants violated their due process rights as a matter of County
procedure (as opposed to random and/or unauthorized acts). Although Plaintiffs' due process
claims are founded on the proposition that the IUOP purported to allow County officials to
disqualify individuals' SNAP benefits without following the requirements set forth in SNAP
statutory and regulatory framework, Plaintiffs neither cite to any provisions in the IUOP that
expressly allow or endorse such conduct, nor allege facts plausibly suggesting that the IUOP
impliedly permits or directs any of the Defendants, as a matter of procedure, to avoid complying
with state or federal statutory and regulatory requirements for administering the SNAP program.
On its face, the IUOP merely reflects the general terms by which the OCDA assumed the
responsibility for, among other things, investigating reports of suspected IPVs as referred by
DSS workers, in exchange for monetary compensation.10
Similarly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting
that their due process rights were violated by "the acts of high-ranking officials who are 'ultimate
decision-maker[s]' and have 'final authority over significant matters'" (and thus that the conduct
9
The Court notes that Plaintiffs expressly do not argue that they were entitled to a
pre-deprivation hearing. (Dkt. No. 34 at 20 ["Here, the Plaintiffs do not request a predeprivation hearing, but only demand that the Defendants follow existing federal and state
procedural regulations during their investigation of a possible IPV."].)
10
To the extent that Plaintiffs may be understood to argue that the very act of
delegating the investigation of suspected food stamp fraud to the OCDA SIU is improper (see
Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶¶ 148-150), Plaintiffs identify no statute, regulation, or other authority
suggesting that DSS may not delegate investigatory duties related to suspected IPVs (a crime) to
law enforcement and/or a district attorney's investigation unit.
-28-
was not "random" or "unauthorized" for that reason). Rivera-Powell, 470 F.3d at 465 (quoting
Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 92-92 & nn.14 & 15 [2d Cir. 2005]). Other than Plaintiffs'
conclusory allegations that Muehl, Bouboulis, and Otsego County "sanctioned . . . Hunt's"
conduct in interacting with Plaintiffs by "promulgating, executing, and adopting the IUOP and
DA Agreement" (Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶¶ 154-156), Plaintiffs' PAC contains no factual
allegations plausibly suggesting that (a) Muehl or Bouboulis had any direct involvement
whatsoever in Plaintiffs' case,11 or (b) Hunt (an investigator who apparently reported to an
assistant district attorney) was himself a high-ranking official with any final authority.
Finally, Plaintiffs' allegations that other cases of suspected IPVs in Otsego County were
handled in the same manner as Plaintiffs' case are speculative and conclusory, and thus do not
plausibly suggest that Plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated as a matter of municipal
procedure, as opposed to the random and/or unauthorized acts. (Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶ 165
["On information and belief, all fraud allegations in Otsego County are resolved in the same
manner as experienced by the Gilmores."].)
For all of these reasons, as well as those set forth in Defendants' memoranda of law, the
Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants
11
Plaintiffs' PAC alleges that Bouboulis failed to update Otsego County's "Notice of
Consequences of Disqualification Consent Agreements" form to reflect "updated contact
information" for Legal Services of Central New York (Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶ 163), but
neither the Code of Federal Regulations nor New York's Code of Rules and Regulations impose
such a requirement. See 7 C.F.R. § 273.16 (h)(1)(i)-(iii) (setting forth information to be included
in advance notifications of "the consequences of consenting to a disqualification as part of a
deferred adjudication"); 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 359.4(b)(4) (providing merely that, "[i]f the prosecutor
requests or authorizes a social services district to assist in obtaining a DCA," the "accused
individual must be advised that he or she may obtain a legal or other authorized representative
for counsel and advice prior to and at the time the DCA is executed . . . .") (emphasis added).
-29-
violated their due process rights under either the United States Constitution or the New York
State Constitution. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second and fifth
claims is granted and those claims are dismissed.
B.
Whether Plaintiffs' PAC Alleges Facts Plausibly Suggesting that Their
Rights Were Violated Pursuant to a Municipal Practice, Custom, or Policy12
After carefully considering this matter, the Court answers this question in the negative for
the reasons set forth in Defendants' memoranda of law.13 (Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1, at 7-9 [Defs.
Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 36 at 4-12 [Defs.' Reply Memo. of Law].) To those reasons, the Court
adds two points, intended to supplement, and not supplant, Defendants' arguments.
First, with regard to Plaintiffs' argument that the IUOP constitutes a municipal policy
adopted by Otsego County, and that the IUOP fails to explicitly "provide for" requirements set
12
Plaintiffs' claim is premised on the following alleged violations: (1) Defendants
required Plaintiffs to "attend a face to face interview" with investigators, in violation of 7 U.S.C.
§§ 2014(b) and 2020(e)(5), as well as 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(a)(1); (2) Defendants "failed to allow"
Plaintiffs to designate a head of household for purposes of their SNAP benefits, in violation of 7
C.F.R. § 273.1(d); (3) Defendants coerced Mr. Gilmore into signing the DCA, even though he
was not the individual accused of committing an IPV and was not the head of household, in
violation of 7 C.F.R. § 273.16(b)(11); (4) Defendants wrongly held Plaintiffs' household
accountable for a failure to report a change in household circumstances, even though it was a
"six-month reporting household" and therefore not required to report the change at issue, in
violation of 7 C.F.R. § 273.12; (5) Defendants "did not have the required sufficient documentary
evidence to substantiate that" Plaintiffs' actions were intentional, rather than inadvertent, in
violation of 7 C.F.R. § 273.16(a)(1); and (6) Defendants "failed to afford the Plaintiffs the
procedural protections" required by 7 C.F.R. § 273.16(h) in securing their execution of the DCA,
including advance written notice of the consequences of signing the DCA. (Dkt. No. 33, Attach.
4, at ¶ 173[a]-[f].)
13
As discussed above, the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts
plausibly suggesting that Defendants violated their constitutional due process rights. Even if
Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that claim, however, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' failure to
allege facts plausibly suggesting the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice
pursuant to which those violations occurred would provide an independent basis for concluding
that Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims as against Otsego County must be dismissed.
-30-
forth in SNAP's implementing regulations (including that those accused of IPVs receive advance
written notification of the consequences of consenting to disqualification from receiving
benefits), the IUOP documents attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint and PAC do not plausibly
suggest the existence of a policy that caused the violations alleged by Plaintiffs. On its face, the
IUOP does not purport to reiterate every statutory and regulatory provision for local
administration of the SNAP program, but rather sets forth the general terms by which the OCDA
agreed to assume (and/or share with DSS) certain responsibilities, including those involving
suspected IPVs.
Second, Plaintiffs' argument that Muehl and Bouboulis are policymaking officials with
respect to prosecutions and social services, respectively, does not necessarily mean that there
existed any County policy, custom, or practice pursuant to which the alleged violations occurred.
See, e.g., Jenkins v. Cty. of Washington, 126 F. Supp. 3d 255, 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (Suddaby, J.)
(noting that plaintiff's allegation that individual defendants were policymaking officials "does
not mean that there existed any County policy, custom or practice pursuant to which the alleged
constitutional deprivations occurred"). In other words, the mere fact that, as policymakers,
Muehl and Bouboulis entered into, and/or continue to abide by the terms of, the IUOP, does not
plausibly suggest the existence of a policy that was the moving force behind the violations
allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs.
Third, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' general allegations that, "[o]n information and
belief, all fraud allegations in Otsego County are resolved in the same manner as experienced by
the Gilmores" and that Muehl, Hunt, and Otsego County failed to adequately train and supervise
Hunt and other OCDA investigators (Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶¶ 165, 167) are too speculative
-31-
and conclusory to plausibly suggest that the municipality acted with deliberate indifference in
disregarding the risk of possible constitutional violations. See generally W.A. v. Hendrick
Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., 14-CV-8093, 2016 WL 1274587, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016)
(concluding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead municipal liability based on a failure to
train where the amended complaint identified two other incidents, which were "isolated" and
"factually dissimilar"); see generally McLennon v. City of New York, 14-CV-6320, 2016 WL
1089258, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016) (concluding that "general and conclusory allegation"
that municipal defendants "failed to properly train NYPD officers 'knowing that such failures
would result in Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations" insufficient to adequately plead
municipal liability based on a failure to train); Lapaix v. City of New York, 13-CV-7306, 2014
WL 3950905, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2014) (noting, with respect to a deliberate indifference
claim, that "a Plaintiff cannot base a claim for a pattern of constitutional violations on one other
incident and general allegations regarding discriminatory motivation.").14
14
In support of their argument, Plaintiffs assert that, according to DSS's Annual
Report for 2013, "not one case of [an] alleged intentional program violation was handled by an
Administrative Disqualification Hearing," and "[t]he vast majority of welfare fraud allegations
were handled through the DCA process" under the "IUOP and DA Agreement." (Dkt. No. 34 at
9, citing http://www.otsegocounty.com/depts/dss/documents/2013annualreportfinal_12-1314.pdf, at 13.) Plaintiffs argue that "[t]his is consistent with Otsego County's custom and
practice of failing to provide notice to accused individuals of the allegations against them," as
well as failing to "advise recipients of their rights regarding the DCA process[.]" (Id.) As of the
date of this Decision and Order, the document cited by Plaintiffs was not available at the website
address provided by Plaintiffs. However, even if the Court assumed the truth and accuracy of
Plaintiffs' assertions in this regard (as well as the truth and accuracy of the report itself), and
even if resort to the report cited was proper of purposes of opposing Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings, the Court could not conclude that this argument renders plausible
Plaintiffs' speculative factual allegation that DSS/OCDA handle every investigation of suspected
IPVs in a manner identical to the circumstances alleged by Plaintiffs.
-32-
In short, Plaintiffs do not allege facts plausibly suggesting that an Otsego County
policymaker conducted, ordered, ratified, or turned a blind eye to any violations asserted by
Plaintiffs. "To the contrary, Plaintiffs allege facts plausibly suggesting the occurrence of a single
incident carried out by one or more individuals below the policy-making level. Such allegations
are insufficient to make out a claim of municipal liability." Kenefic v. Oswego Cty., 07-CV0213, 2010 WL 2977267, at *24 and n.42 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2010) (Suddaby, J.) (collecting
cases).
For these reasons, as well as each of those reasons set forth in Defendants' memoranda of
law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting the
existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind the
statutory and regulatory violations to which they were allegedly subjected.15 Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims as against Otsego County are therefore dismissed.
C.
Whether Plaintiffs' PAC Alleges Facts Plausibly Suggesting that Muehl and
Bouboulis Were Personally Involved for Purposes of Their § 1983 Claim
Predicated on Defendants' Violation of the SNAP Statutes and Implementing
Regulations
After carefully considering this matter, the Court answers this question in the negative for
the reasons set forth in Defendants' memoranda of law. (Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1, at 16-18 [Defs.'
Memo. of Law]; Dkt. No. 36 at 15-17 [Defs.' Reply Memo. of Law].) To those reasons, the
Court adds two points.
15
The Court notes that claims against individual defendants in their official
capacities "are duplicative of . . . § 1983 claims against" municipality defendants, and "[w]here,
as here, a plaintiff has 'fail[ed] to adequately allege a basis for municipal liability,' the court may
dismiss th[ose] duplicative 'claims against the [i]individual [d]efendants in their official
capacities[.]'" Mastronardi v. Vill. of Hancock, 13-CV-1281, 2016 WL 799326, at *3 n.2
(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016) (Scullin, J.) (quoting K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains Sch. Dist.,
921 F. Supp. 2d 197, 205 n.4 [S.D.N.Y. 2013]).
-33-
First, with respect to Bouboulis, Plaintiffs' argue that Bouboulis "enact[ed]" and
"carr[ied] out . . . official policies," and also "failed to place the proper contact information for
Legal Services on the 'Notice of Consequences of the DCA.'" (Dkt. No. 34 at 18.) However,
Plaintiffs do not allege facts plausibly suggesting the manner in which Bouboulis "carried out"
any purported policy; she was not signatory to the IUOP documents and, in any event, as
discussed above, those documents do not reflect a policy or agreement between DSS and OCDA
that the investigation or prosecution of suspected IPV cases would be carried out in a manner
that did not comply with federal or state statutes and regulations. Moreover, Bouboulis's alleged
failure to update the contact information for "Legal Services" on the "Notice of Consequences"
form used by Defendants, even if assumed to be true, is an insufficient basis upon which to find
her personally involved; none of the regulations that Plaintiffs claim were violated impose a
requirement that Bouboulis or Otsego County provide that information on the "Notice of
Consequences" form, and Plaintiffs do not otherwise connect the failure to update the form to
any harm they suffered.16
Second, with respect to Muehl, Plaintiffs allege only that Muehl signed the IUOP and
"DA Agreement" which predated the conduct at issue here, "approved of" Hunt's actions in
investigating Plaintiffs and undisclosed "other similar welfare fraud investigations," and issued
the "policies and directives" that Hunt and other OCDA investigators followed "when they
16
In their PAC, Plaintiffs allege that Hunt's actions prevented them from being able
to review the DCA and Notice of Consequences paperwork until after they had already executed
the DCA (and thereby acknowledged wrongdoing). (Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶ 164.) It is
therefore unclear how Bouboulis's (apparently earlier) failure to update the "Legal Services"
contact information on the form rendered her personally involved in the violations resulting from
Hunt's allegedly coercive conduct, or that this failure had any causal connection with the
violations of which Plaintiffs complain.
-34-
proceeded to obtain a DCA from [Plaintiffs] and others" without, among other things, "giving
advanced notice" or the "basis for the allegations[.]" (Dkt. No. 34 at 18.) Once again, however,
it is unclear to what "policies and directives" Plaintiffs refer, and Plaintiffs do not allege facts
plausibly suggesting any logical connection between the IUOP documents and Hunt's conduct
with respect to Plaintiffs; these deficiencies render Plaintiffs' allegation that Muehl "was aware
of and approved, condoned or failed to correct [Hunt's] unlawful practices" a conclusory recital
of legal standards not supported by facts plausibly suggesting supervisory liability here. See
generally Marom v. City of New York, 15-CV-2017, 2016 WL 916424, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7,
2016) ("The [complaint], however, fails to plausibly allege how [an individual defendant] or the .
. . policy he allegedly created caused false information to be relied upon or recorded during of
Marom's or Roecek's arrests [for purposes of false arrest claims].").
For these reasons, as well as those reasons set forth in Defendants' memoranda of law, the
Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that Bouboulis or
Muehl were personally involved in the violations of which they complain. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims as against Bouboulis and Muehl are dismissed.17
D.
Whether Hunt Enjoys Qualified Immunity with Respect to Plaintiffs' § 1983
Claim Predicated on Defendants' Violation of the SNAP Statutes and
Implementing Regulations
After carefully considering this matter, and based on the limited information before it, the
Court concludes that Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that a determination
partially disposing of Plaintiffs' first and sixth claims with respect to Hunt on the basis of
17
Because the Court concludes that neither Muehl nor Bouboulis were personally
involved in any of the violations of which Plaintiffs complain, the Court need not address their
further argument that they enjoy absolute immunity and/or qualified immunity.
-35-
qualified immunity is appropriate at this time. The Court reaches this conclusion for the
following reasons.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials "from liability for civil
damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 [1982]); accord, Zalaski v. City of
Hartford, 723 F.3d 382, 388 (2d Cir. 2013). "Two questions inform qualified immunity
analysis." Zalaski, 723 F.3d at 388. "First, do the facts show that the officer's conduct violated
plaintiff's [statutory or] constitutional rights?" Second, "was the right clearly established at the
time of defendant's actions?" Id. "Addressing the latter question first is particularly appropriate
where the former turns on difficult or novel questions of constitutional or statutory interpretation,
but it is nevertheless clear that the challenged conduct 'was not objectively unreasonable in light
of existing law.'" Id. at 389. As a general matter, "[f]or qualified immunity to bar suit at the
motion to dismiss stage . . . the facts supporting the defense [must] appear on the face of the
complaint[.]" Holland v. City of New York, 14-CV-5517, 2016 WL 3636249, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.
June 24, 2016) (citation omitted); accord, e.g., Kenney v. Clay, 2016 WL 1156747, at *9
(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016) (Hurd, J.).
Initially, the Court concludes that Hunt is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect
to Plaintiffs' sixth claim, which is not asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but rather alleges
violations of state law. "[A] violation of state law neither gives [plaintiffs] a § 1983 claim nor
deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper § 1983 claim." Holland,
2016 WL 3636249, at *12 (quoting Doe v. Conn. Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., 911 F.2d 868,
-36-
869 [2d Cir. 1990]); accord, Mawhirt v. Ahmed, 8 F. App'x 125, 127 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary
order) ("Because a violation of state law is not cognizable under § 1983, the federal law doctrine
of qualified immunity does not apply to state law claims[.]") (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).
With respect to Plaintiffs' first claim, Defendants argue in a conclusory manner that,
"even if all the allegations are accepted as true, Defendant Hunt cannot have violated an
established constitutional right of the Plaintiffs' under that claim" because Plaintiffs rely upon
statutes and regulations that lack "constitutional dimension." (Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1, at 15
[Defs.' Memo. of Law].) This argument oversimplifies the issue, however, because it is
axiomatic that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under
color of state law, abridges 'rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws' of the United States." Shakhnes v. Berlin, 689 F.3d 244, 250 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting 42
U.S.C. § 1983) (emphasis added). "Violations of rights thus give rise to § 1983 actions; mere
violations of laws do not," Shakhnes, 689 F.3d at 250, and such rights may be created by federal
statute. See, e.g., Fishman v. Paolucci, 628 F. App'x 797, 801 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order)
(noting that, "[w]hen a federal statute creates a right enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
federal regulations 'may be relevant in determining the scope of the right conferred by
Congress.'") (quoting Shakhnes, 689 F.3d at 251); accord, Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273,
283 (2002); Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997).18 Further complicating the
18
In Shaknes, the Second Circuit noted that, "[a]s an agency interpretation of a
statute, a regulation may be relevant in determining the scope of the right conferred by
Congress," and applied the "rubric" set forth by the Eleventh Circuit in an earlier case:
[S]o long as the statute itself confers a specific right upon the
plaintiff, and a valid regulation merely further defines or fleshes
-37-
issue is the fact that the Second Circuit "has yet to determine whether a federal regulation,
standing alone, can create a right enforceable via § 1983." D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. New York City
Bd. of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 513 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Shakhnes, 689 F.3d at 250-51 & n.4
(collecting cases from other Circuit courts holding that regulations may not independently create
rights enforceable under § 1983, but noting that "this observation is beside the point, because the
[d]istrict [c]ourt did nto hold that the regulation here at issue independently creates a right
enforceable under § 1983"). Defendants do not address these issues. Nor do they argue in their
memorandum of law that Plaintiffs' first claim (and their related factual allegations) fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted; and, with respect to their qualified immunity argument,
they do not address with particularity any of the statutes or regulations relied upon by Plaintiffs.
The Court concludes that, by essentially outlining the general standard governing qualified
immunity and relying on the incomplete argument that the provisions cited by Plaintiffs do not
have "constitutional dimension," Defendants have not established Hunt's entitlement to qualified
immunity.
Moreover, Defendants summarily argue for the first time in their reply brief (and, again,
out the content of that right, then the statute–in conjunction with
the regulation–may create a federal right as further defined by the
regulation. . . .
On the other hand, if the regulation defines the content of a
statutory provision that creates no federal right . . ., or if the
regulation goes beyond explicating the specific content of the
statutory provision and imposes distinct obligations in order to
further the broad objectives underlying the statutory provision, . . .
the regulation is too far removed from Congressional intent to
constitute a 'federal right' enforceable under § 1983.
Shakhnes, 689 F.3d at 251 (quoting Harris v. James, 127 F.3d 993, 1009 [11th Cir. 1997]).
-38-
only in the context of their qualified immunity argument) that "the SNAP Act and its
implementing regulations do not afford a private right of action," and cite a single case for that
proposition. (Dkt. No. 36 at 19 [citing Trefry v. Tracy, 14-CV-0044, 2014 WL 2154263, at *4-5
(D. Me. May 22, 2014)] [dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pro se plaintiff's
claim that disqualification from food stamps based on the amount of household income was
"unfair," in part because "the SNAP Act does not authorize this Court to exercise jurisdiction
over Plaintiff's private action seeking a change in federal and state food stamp policy"].)
Defendants further add, in a one-sentence footnote, that Trefry "appears to require dismissal of
Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief outright." (Dkt. No. 36 at 19 n.1.) The Court declines to reach
Defendants' argument (which does not appear to be adequately supported)19 because it was raised
for the first time in Defendants' reply memorandum of law, foreclosing a response from Plaintiffs
and preventing the issue from being more fully fleshed out. See, e.g., Ditullio v. Vill. of
Massena, 81 F. Supp. 2d 397, 408-09 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (McAvoy, C.J.) ("Defendant may not
first raise arguments . . . in its reply papers because Plaintiff would not have a fair opportunity to
respond.").
Finally, the Court cannot determine from the face of Plaintiffs' Complaint or PAC
whether Hunt's actions were objectively reasonable for purposes of his qualified immunity
argument, and Defendants do not argue that those actions were objectively reasonable. (See
generally Dkt. No. 13, Attach. 1, at 14-15.) For example, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Hunt
19
The Court will not linger on the fact that, contrary to Defendants' cursory
argument, the Second Circuit has held that certain SNAP statutory provisions are enforceable by
private of action under § 1983. See Briggs v. Bremby, 792 F.3d 239, 241-46 (2d Cir. 2015)
(concluding that the time limits for allocating food stamps provided in 7 U.S.C. § 2020[e][3] and
[9] are privately enforceable through lawsuits pursuant to § 1983).
-39-
coerced them to execute the DCA without sufficient evidence that a program violation was
intentional, and "[t]he objective reasonableness of [Hunt's] acts depends in part on what
information [he] had at the time." Taylor v. Vermont Dep't of Educ., 313 F.3d 768, 793-94 (2d
Cir. 2002) (vacating district court's judgment dismissing claims in part on qualified immunity
grounds as "premature") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under all of the circumstances, the Court concludes that Defendants have not met their
burden of demonstrating, from the face of the Complaint or PAC, that Hunt is shielded by
qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs' first and sixth claims. Defendants' motion to
dismiss on that basis is therefore denied.
E.
Whether Plaintiffs' PAC Alleges Facts Plausibly Suggesting that They Have
Standing to Obtain Declaratory or Injunctive Relief with Respect to Their §
1983 Claims
After carefully considering this matter, the Court answers this question in the negative for
the reasons stated in Defendants' reply memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 36 at 13-15 [Defs.' Reply
Memo. of Law].) To those reasons, the Court adds the following analysis.
On December 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a letter motion to strike Defendants' argument that
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to their § 1983
claims because, according to Plaintiffs, that argument was improperly raised for the first time in
Defendants' reply brief. (Dkt. No. 38.) The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion, but noted that it
would disregard Defendant's arguments and reconsider Plaintiffs' motion if the Court determined
that Defendants' arguments were improperly interposed. (Text Order filed 12/11/15.)
-40-
Plaintiffs' point is well taken, and the Court frequently declines to consider arguments
raised for the first time in reply papers. See, e.g., supra, Part III.C.3. of this Decision and Order.
Here, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants were on notice that Plaintiffs were seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief, because those requests were included in the prayer for relief of
their Complaint, but that Defendants did not assert their lack-of-standing argument until they
filed their reply.20 (Dkt. No. 1.) However, under the circumstances of this case (and with respect
to this argument only), the Court concludes that reaching Defendants' argument is appropriate for
the following reasons.
First, district courts have discretion to consider arguments raised for the first time in
reply papers. Ruggiero v. Warner-Lambert Co., 424 F.3d 249, 252 (2d Cir. 2005); accord,
Compania Del Bajo Caroni Caroni (Caromin), C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 341 F.
App'x 722, 724 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) ("A district court enjoys broad discretion (1) to
consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief [and] (2) to rely on evidence
submitted with the reply papers[.]") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Mateo v.
Gundrum , 10-CV-1103, 2011 WL 5325790, at *12 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011) (Lowe, M.J.),
adopted, 2011 WL 5325794, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2011) (Sharpe, J.). As a corollary
principle, it is axiomatic that "reply papers may properly address new material issues raised in
20
The Court notes that, in their memorandum of law, Defendants advanced
numerous procedural and substantive arguments in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint in its entirety. In their opposition memorandum of law, Plaintiffs emphasized that
they were seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the limited context of arguing that, even if
the individual Defendants were ultimately entitled to absolute and/or qualified immunity, they
still should not be dismissed from the case because Plaintiffs' could still pursue their requests for
equitable relief. (Dkt. No. 34 at 10-11, 14 [Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of Law].) In their reply
memorandum of law, in further supported of their qualified immunity argument, Defendants
argued that Plaintiffs lacked standing to request that relief, in the context of reiterating their
arguments concerning the applicability of the doctrines of absolute and/or qualified immunity.
-41-
the opposition papers so as to avoid giving unfair advantage to the answering party." Bayway
Refining Co. v. Oxygenated Marketing and Trading A.G., 215 F.3d 219, 226-27 (2d Cir. 2000)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).21 It is the rare case in which the Court finds it
appropriate to consider arguments first raised in a reply brief, but the Court has long-recognized
discretion to do so.
Second (and more important), the issue of standing is a "threshold issue" that goes to the
heart of whether a Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Gary Allen
Green & Broadway Sound & Video, Inc. v. Jackson, 36 F. App'x 663, 668-69 (2d Cir. 2002)
(summary order) (dismissing, sua sponte, claims for injunctive and declaratory relief for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff's arguments with respect to the likelihood of future
injury were too speculative); see also Muntagim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371, 376-77 (2d Cir. 2006)
(concluding, sua sponte, that plaintiff lacked standing, even though his "failure to establish
standing was not raised or discussed in the district court," and vacating prior opinions in the
case); Ray Legal Consulting Grp. v. Gray, 37 F. Supp. 3d 689, 698 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
("Although Defendants raise their argument that Plaintiff lacks standing in their reply
memorandum, such that the Court need not consider it . . . the Court will do so here because it is
21
Here, Defendants argue (in their letter response to Plaintiffs' motion to strike)
that, in relying on their requested equitable relief to oppose Defendants' immunity arguments,
Plaintiffs brought the issue of the propriety of that relief to the forefront, and Defendants
countered that argument in their reply. (Dkt. No. 39.) The Court finds this argument tenuous,
given that, again, Plaintiffs' request for equitable relief was set forth in their Complaint.
Somewhat more persuasive, however, is Defendants' argument that, with their PAC, Plaintiffs
have (in addition to relying upon their requests for equitable relief to oppose dismissal)
attempted to augment their factual allegations regarding the existence of a municipal policy or
practice of improperly handling food stamp applications and investigations, and thereby giving
greater primacy to the appropriateness of declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id.) This does not,
of course, alter the fact that Plaintiffs' sought equitable relief from the outset.
-42-
a jurisdictional issue, which must be addressed when 'it emerges from the record.'") (quoting
Pashaian v. Eccelston Props., Ltd., 88 F.3d 77, 82 [2d Cir. 1996]) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted); Kiryas Joel Alliance v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 495 F. App'x 183, 188 (2d
Cir. 2012) (summary order) ("Standing is the threshold issue in every federal case[.]") (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Court has the authority, and duty, to reach
this issue sua sponte, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
For each of these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to consider Defendants'
argument in their reply memorandum of law that Plaintiffs' lack standing to obtain declaratory
and injunctive relief with respect to their § 1983 claims. After carefully considering the matter,
the Court accepts Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs' PAC does not allege facts plausibly
suggesting a real and immediate threat of future injury, for the reasons stated in Defendants'
reply memorandum of law.22 (Dkt. No. 36 at 13-14 [Defs. Reply Memo. of Law, citing, inter
alia, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983), and Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d
211, 215 (2d Cir. 2004)]). On that basis, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' lack standing to
seek declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to their § 1983 claims.
22
The Court notes that Plaintiffs' factual allegation that all food stamp
investigations processed in Otsego County are handled in the same improper manner as their
own (which, as discussed above, the Court does not find to have been plausibly pleaded) also
does not provide them standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. See Reyes v. Cty. of
Suffolk, 995 F. Supp. 2d 215, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (dismissing plaintiff's claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief "because there is no allegation by the [p]laintiff that he will personally
suffer future injury and because 'a plaintiff with no claim of his own lacks standing to assert the
rights of others'") (quoting Ribeiro v. Travis, 00-CV-6763, 2001 WL 893366, at *3 [S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 8, 2001]).
-43-
F.
Whether Plaintiffs State Law Claims Should Be Dismissed Because
Plaintiffs' PAC Fails to Allege Facts Plausibly Suggesting that They Filed a
Notice of Claim
After carefully considering this matter, and under the circumstances of this case, the
Court answers this question in the negative for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' opposition
memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 36 at 21-22 [Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of Law].) To those reasons, the
Court adds the following analysis.
First, Defendants argue in their reply memorandum of law that "§ 1983 claims grounded
in the New York State Constitution are tort claims for the purpose of analysis of [n]otice of
[c]laim requirements," and that Plaintiffs have not disputed that proposition. (Dkt. No. 36 at 23.)
Defendants' argument misses the point. "Clearly, a violation of state law is not cognizable under
§ 1983." Pollnow v. Glennon, 757 F.2d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1985). Moreover, Plaintiffs do not
dispute that New York's "notice of claim requirement applies not only to . . . negligence claims
but also to . . . intentional tort claims and related claims for violation of state constitutional and
statutory provisions." Brooks v. Cty. of Nassau, 54 F. Supp. 3d 254, 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)
(collecting cases). Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the notice of claim requirement does not apply
here because their requests for compensatory damages are incidental to their requests for
equitable relief. (Dkt. No. 34 at 21-22 [Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of Law].)
"In determining whether plaintiffs primarily seek equitable or monetary relief, the Court
must 'consider the complaint in the light of all its allegations and its full scope and purport.'"
People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, 108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
(quoting Watts v. Town of Gardiner, 90 A.D.2d 615, 615 [N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1982] ["It is
well settled that a notice of claim is not required for an action brought in equity against a
-44-
municipality, where the demand for money damages is merely incidental to the requested
injunctive relief and subordinate thereto."]). Here, liberally construing Plaintiffs' Complaint, and
for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' opposition memorandum of law, the Court cannot conclude
that Plaintiffs were primarily seeking money damages such that the failure to file a notice of
claim is fatal to their claim predicated on the violation of state statutory and regulatory
provisions. People United for Children, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 2d at 301.
The Court's conclusion in this regard is informed by two additional considerations. As an
initial matter, while the Court has accepted Defendants' late-blossoming argument that Plaintiffs'
PAC does not allege facts plausibly suggesting that they have standing to seek equitable relief
for purposes of their § 1983 claims (see, supra, Part III.D. of this Decision and Order),
Defendants have not argued that there is no basis on which Plaintiffs may have standing to seek
equitable relief pursuant to their state law claims. Moreover, Defendants have not argued that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may granted with respect to their sixth
cause of action (i.e., Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to state statutory and regulatory provisions).23
Third, and finally, with regard to state law claims against an individual defendant in his or her
individual capacity, "service of a notice of claim is not a condition precedent to the
23
With respect to their sixth claim, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did the
following: (a) impermissibly delegated all steps of the investigation of eligibility to the OCDA;
(b) failed to "properly presume that Plaintiffs' alleged failure to report income" was inadvertent
error; (c) failed to use the DCA only in cases involving deferred adjudication; (d) failed to
provide Plaintiffs with the DCA and Notice of Consequences 10 days in advance of asking them
to sign those documents; (e) failed to advise Plaintiffs of their right to counsel prior to, and at the
time of, signing the DCA; (f) failed to "adhere to the required district procedures for
investigating, referral and provision of evidence related to fraud investigations," including the
requirement to "determine the existence of any mitigating facts or circumstances" and provide
them to the OCDA; (g) used threats of force and false statements to obtain evidence; and (h) by
failing to comply with these requirements, violated Plaintiffs' civil rights under New York Social
Services Law § 134-a. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 176[a]-[h]; Dkt. No. 33, Attach. 4, at ¶¶ 201[a]-[h].)
-45-
commencement of an action against a county's employees or agents unless the county is required
to indemnify the individual defendants." Brooks, 54 F. Supp. 3d at 258 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted) (concluding that "the parties have not adequately briefed the issue of
whether the County has a duty to indemnify the defendant police officers as to specific state
claims" and denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's individual capacity claims). The
parties have not briefed this issue and, under the circumstances, the Court declines to determine
the issue on this alternative ground not addressed by the parties.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' sixth claim on the ground that
Plaintiffs failed to file a notice of claim is denied.
G.
Whether Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
Should Be Granted
After carefully considering this matter, the Court answers this question in the affirmative,
in part for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' opposition memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 34 at 3-5
[Plfs.' Opp'n Memo. of Law].) Defendants have not argued that they would be prejudiced by the
amendment, and their conclusory reference to Plaintiffs' "undue delay" (Dkt. No. 6 at 3 [Defs.'
Reply Memo. of Law]) is undercut by the fact that the parties have exchanged little discovery,
and Plaintiffs' cross-motion–which was timely filed pursuant to U.S. Magistrate Judge David E.
Peebles' Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order–closely followed Defendants' pre-answer motion for
judgment on the pleadings. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiffs do not propose to add new
claims or theories of recovery; to the contrary, Plaintiffs' PAC withdraws two of the six claims
they asserted in their Complaint.
The question is whether Plaintiffs' proposed amendments are futile. To the limited extent
that Plaintiffs' claims survive Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (and based on
-46-
the possibility that Plaintiffs' proposed additional factual allegations will serve to aid in
crystallizing those claims), amendment is appropriate. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs'
claims do not survive Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, those claims are
dismissed from Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No 13) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint (Dkt.
Nos. 33-34) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that, based upon Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, the
following claims are DISMISSED:
(1) Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief (asserting violations of SNAP statutes and
implementing regulations) as to Defendants Otsego County, Bouboulis, and Muehl;
(2) Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief (asserting a due process violation pursuant to the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution) in its entirety; and
(3) Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for Relief (asserting a due process violation pursuant to Article
I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution) in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that, based upon Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to file an Amended
Complaint, and in accordance with Plaintiffs' Proposed Amended Complaint, the following
claims are DISMISSED from this action:
(1) Plaintiffs' Third Claim for Relief (asserting violations of the right against selfincrimination and the right to counsel pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
-47-
United States Constitution) in its entirety; and
(2) Plaintiffs' Fourth Claim for Relief (asserting a violation of the right to counsel
pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution) in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that, as of the date of the filing of this Decision and Order, the following
claims remain PENDING in this action:
(1) Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief (asserting violations of SNAP statutes and its
implementing regulations) as to Defendant Hunt only; and
(2) Plaintiffs' Sixth Claim for Relief (asserting violations of 18 N.Y.C.R.R., Parts 348 and
359 and New York Social Services Law § 134-a); and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall, within SEVEN (7) DAYS from the date of this Decision
and Order, file a revised, signed Amended Complaint that omits the claims dismissed by, and
asserts only the claims permitted by, this Decision and Order. Defendants are directed to file an
answer to Plaintiff’s complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after the filing of the Amended
Complaint. This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Peebles for the setting of pretrial
deadlines.
Dated: August 29, 2016
Syracuse, New York
_________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief U.S. District Judge
-48-
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?