Gibbons v. MN-DHS-Hennepin County Municipal Liability

Background

Andrew Gibbons applied for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits through Hennepin County on December 21, 2022. Hennepin County initially denied the application because it determined that Gibbons was an ineligible student. Hennepin County later reversed that decision after determining that Gibbons qualified under temporary COVID-19 provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA). It retroactively issued SNAP benefits through electronic benefit transfer (EBT). The opinion notes that Gibbons alleged the amount was $2,200, while records supplied by the defendants showed $2,066; the court stated that the difference did not affect the motions.

Gibbons asked that the retroactive benefits be paid in cash instead of EBT. The Minnesota Department of Human Services held a hearing and upheld the use of EBT, then denied Gibbons’s request for reconsideration. Gibbons filed this federal action against Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. He proceeded without a lawyer.

Claims and analysis

The court reviewed the defendants’ motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court construed Gibbons’s complaint liberally but explained that a self-represented complaint still must contain sufficient factual allegations.

CAA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims

Gibbons alleged that the defendants violated the CAA by initially denying his benefits and later providing backpay through EBT rather than cash. The court held that the CAA does not create a private right of action, meaning it does not authorize an individual to sue directly under the statute. The court also held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not provide an alternative cause of action because Gibbons did not allege deprivation of a federal statutory or constitutional right. The court further concluded that the CAA expanded temporary SNAP eligibility but did not require or authorize payment in cash rather than EBT. To the extent Gibbons asserted a § 1983 claim against the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the court stated that sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment also barred that claim.

The court dismissed the CAA claims with prejudice.

Theft claim

Gibbons alleged that the defendants effectively stole federal funds because the initial denial of SNAP benefits forced him to spend Economic Impact Payments and Pell Grants. The court considered possible claims under the federal criminal theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 641, and Minnesota Statute § 604.14, which concerns civil liability for theft.

The court held that Gibbons could not bring a claim under the federal criminal statute because a private citizen has no legally recognized interest in another person’s criminal prosecution. It also stated that the funds at issue were no longer federal or public money after they had been paid to Gibbons. As to Minnesota law, the court found that Gibbons did not allege facts showing that either defendant wrongfully or secretly took his property with the intent to keep it. The court concluded that disagreement with receiving backpay through EBT rather than cash did not support a theft claim.

Emotional-distress claim

The court interpreted Gibbons’s reference to emotional distress as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Minnesota law. It held that Gibbons provided only conclusory statements that his mental-health symptoms were aggravated and did not allege particular facts showing that either defendant caused actionable emotional distress. The court dismissed that claim with prejudice.

Challenge to the agency decision

The court treated Gibbons’s reference to an appeal of the Minnesota Department of Human Services decision as a request for judicial review of that agency decision. It stated that Minnesota Statute § 256.045, subdivision 7, identifies the proper venue for judicial review of Minnesota Department of Human Services matters. Because the court dismissed the claims that could provide federal jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the agency appeal. The court dismissed that claim without prejudice. The opinion’s footnote states that Gibbons could theoretically refile that claim in the appropriate state court.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim granted the Minnesota Department of Human Services’ motion to dismiss and granted Hennepin County’s motion to dismiss. He denied Gibbons’s motion to deny the defendants’ motions. The complaint was dismissed as follows: the CAA, theft, and emotional-distress claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the claim appealing the Minnesota Department of Human Services decision was dismissed without prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.