Perez v. USA et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying (12) Motion to Enforce Stayin case 1:09-cv-00040-S-LDA; denying (11) Motion to Enforce Stay in case 1:10-cv-00157-S-LDA. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 11/30/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
)
OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND
)
NUTRITION SERVICE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
LUIS PEREZ, d/b/a
Hawkins Market

C.A. No. 09-40 S

______________________________
)
LUIS PEREZ, d/b/a
)
Hawkins Market
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
)
OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND
)
NUTRITION SERVICE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

C.A. No. 10-157 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to enforce a stay
entered

in

Plaintiff

the
to

above-captioned
continue

cases.

utilizing

its

The

stay

would

Supplemental

allow

Nutrition

Assistance
pending

Program

review

permanently

(“SNAP”)

of

terminal

Defendant’s

disqualify

Plaintiff

to

accept

October
as

an

SNAP

2016

benefits

decision

authorized

to

retailer.

(Motion to Enforce a Stay, C.A. No. 10-157S ECF No. 11.)

In

2009, the parties entered a Joint Stipulation to Stay the Order
of Disqualification from Food Stamp Program Pending Disposition
(“Stay”), staying the disqualification at issue in C.A. No. 0940S. (ECF No. 4.)

The Stay specifically provided that “[e]ither

party may seek relief from this order should it appear that such
reasonable steps are not being taken” to bring the action to a
conclusion. (Id. at 2.)
In

May

prejudice

2009,

by

C.A.

No.

09-40S

was

stipulation

and

remanded

dismissed

to

the

United

without
States

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (“FNS”)
for the completion of the administrative review process. (ECF
No.

11.)

The

previously

stipulation

agreed

to

by

the

clearly
parties

stated
shall

that

“[t]he

remain

in

stay

effect

during the pendency of the agency review.” 1 (Id.)
The

pending

Motion

to

enforce

1

this

Stay

contends

that

The Stay was reinforced in August 2010 when C.A. No. 10157S was dismissed without prejudice and remanded to FNS pending
additional agency review. (ECF No. 8.) The stipulation entered
in that case also specified that “[t]he stay previously agreed
to by the parties shall remain in effect during the pendency of
the agency review.” (Id.)
2

Plaintiff operated without interference from the FNS from the
date of the dismissal stipulation until August 4, 2016.

On

August 4, FNS sent Plaintiff a letter accusing it of trafficking
in

SNAP

benefits

and

subsequently

entered

a

permanent

termination of Plaintiff’s SNAP terminal’s operations in October
2016. (Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Enforce Stay 3-4, C.A. No. 0940S ECF No. 11.)

Plaintiff asserts that this termination is a

continuation of the prior FNS action against it such that the
Stay may be enforced by this Court, serving to reinstate the
operation of its SNAP terminal pending review. (Id. at 4.)
Defendant

objects

to

Plaintiff’s

Motion

to

enforce

the

Stay, arguing that: (1) the current disqualification is premised
on evidence gathered after the final agency review concluded in
the above-captioned cases; (2) Plaintiff has not exhausted his
administrative remedies regarding the current disqualification;
and (3) that Plaintiff is not entitled to a stay for the current
permanent

disqualification

during

the

pendency

of

the

administrative appeal or judicial review. (C.A. No. 09-40S ECF
No. 15.)
On November 15, 2016, the FNS concluded the administrative
review

process

of

its

decision

to

permanently

disqualify

Plaintiff as an authorized retailer of SNAP benefits.

The FNS

found that sufficient evidence existed to support the initial
3

agency
from

conclusion
January

that,

through

based

June

on

2016,

electronic

transaction

Plaintiff

impermissible trafficking of SNAP benefits.

had

data

engaged

in

This Court finds

that, based on the discrete time period on which the agency’s
conclusions

were

drawn,

the

FNS’s

current

determination

that

Plaintiff engaged in trafficking is unrelated to the violations
that

were

cases.

at

issue

several

years

ago

in

the

above-captioned

This Court cannot, therefore, enforce the Stay in these

two cases to reinstate the operation of Plaintiff’s SNAP benefit
terminal pending judicial review.

As Plaintiff is well-aware,

it may seek judicial review of the FNS’s final decision within
thirty days after it received notice of this decision, but it
will need to commence a new action. See 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce a Stay is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: November 30, 2016

4