Thompson v. Welfare

Background

Sammy Thompson appeared without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. He sued defendants listed as “Welfare,” “Social Security,” “WIC,” “DSS,” “HRA,” and “SSI.” The court understood WIC to mean the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; DSS to mean the New York City Department of Social Services; HRA to mean the New York City Human Resources Administration; and SSI to mean the Supplemental Security Income program.

Thompson alleged that his debit card was stolen, a Medicaid card was not mailed to him, his food-stamp and cash-assistance cards could not be activated, and he received no explanation for why he could not access benefits. He sought $50,000 in damages.

Claims and Analysis

The court liberally interpreted the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Thompson was denied procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment concerning public-assistance benefits. Procedural due process generally concerns whether a person received an adequate opportunity to challenge the loss or denial of a protected interest.

The court held that “Welfare,” Social Security, WIC, and SSI were public-benefit programs, not “persons” that could be sued under Section 1983. It also held that DSS and HRA, as New York City agencies, were not entities that could be sued. The court explained that a claim against New York City itself would require facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation, but it declined to construe the complaint as asserting a claim against the City because Thompson had not alleged facts suggesting a viable constitutional claim.

The court further held that Thompson had not alleged that he pursued New York’s administrative fair-hearing process or judicial review in state court to challenge the denial or revocation of benefits. It therefore dismissed his Section 1983 procedural-due-process claims for failure to state a claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Thompson 30 days’ leave to replead. An amended complaint could attempt to state a procedural-due-process claim by alleging facts showing how an individual New York City official denied Thompson due process or provided inadequate procedures for challenging the denial of public benefits. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered and stated that, if Thompson does not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the Clerk will be directed to enter judgment.