Farr v. State of Wisconsin et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 2/26/16 granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Further ordering that the plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint on or before March 11, 2016, the court will dismiss this action in its entirety. (cc: via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________
JASON M. FARR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-C-0215

STATE OF WISCONSIN RESCARE
WORKFOCE SERVICES FOOD SHARE
EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff Jason M. Farr, who is not represented by an attorney, has filed a
complaint in this court and requests leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing
fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon review of his request, I conclude that he cannot
afford to prepay the filing fee and that therefore his request should be granted.
However, in reviewing the plaintiff’s complaint, I have determined that he has
failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
(stating that court shall dismiss case if it determines that the action fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted). The plaintiff alleges that he was ordered to participate
in a program, called FoodShare Employment & Training (“FSET”), in order to keep
receiving his FoodShare benefits. The plaintiff alleges that ordering him to participate in
the program violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
However, from what the plaintiff has alleged, it does not appear that his rights were
violated. The plaintiff alleges that the FSET program will not help him because he must
address other parts of his life, such as finding food and shelter, before he can start
looking for employment. While that may be true, the Constitution does not prohibit a
1

state from requiring recipients of public benefits to participate in certain programs.
Perhaps if the state had singled the plaintiff out for unequal treatment, such as requiring
the plaintiff to participate in the program even though it does not require others who are
similarly situated to him to participate, the plaintiff could state a claim under the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the complaint does not allege
that the plaintiff has been treated differently from others in the FoodShare program. To
the contrary, the plaintiff alleges that many individuals in the FoodShare program have
been subjected to the same requirement. See Compl. p. 4.
Really, the plaintiff seems to be alleging that requiring FoodShare recipients to
participate in the FSET program is poor policy, because most recipients of public
benefits have problems that take priority over looking for employment, such as dealing
with substance abuse and mental-health issues. However, a state’s policy cannot be
declared unconstitutional simply because it is bad or unwise. See New York City Transit
Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 593 (1979) (stating that the Constitution does not
authorize a federal court to interfere with governmental policy decision simply because
the policy may be unwise).
In short, the plaintiff has not identified any defect in the FSET program, either in
general or as applied to him, that could have resulted in a constitutional violation. Thus,
the plaintiff has not stated a viable claim for relief, and his complaint must be dismissed.
However, if the plaintiff believes that he can identify a constitutional defect in the FSET
program or in the way the program has been applied to him, he may file an amended
complaint in which he identifies that defect. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 756
(7th Cir. 2011) (stating that district courts should grant pro se litigants opportunities to

2

cure defects in their complaints).

However, the plaintiff must understand that his

personal belief that the program is unwise or that he will not benefit from the program is
not grounds for a federal claim. Accordingly, unless the plaintiff can identify some other
problem with the program, he should not file an amended complaint.
For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s request to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended
complaint. If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint on or before March 11,
2016, the court will dismiss this action in its entirety.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 26th day of February, 2016.

s/ Lynn Adelman
______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3