1976 J. J. Deli Grocery Corp. v. Food and Nutrition Service
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-10203
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In 1976 J.J. Deli Grocery Corp. v. Food and Nutrition Service, Judge McMahon dismissed the late SNAP-review complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
1976 J.J. Deli Grocery Corp.’s attempt to obtain judicial review of its permanent SNAP disqualification was ended because the complaint was filed after the jurisdictional deadline.
What happened
1976 J.J. Deli Grocery Corp. challenged the Food and Nutrition Service’s decision to permanently disqualify it from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food benefits usable at authorized retailers.
The complaint sought judicial review, but it was filed after the 30-day deadline that applies after service of the agency’s final determination. The government moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff did not oppose the motion.
Judge Colleen McMahon granted the government’s motion and dismissed the complaint. She held that the deadline was jurisdictional, could not be extended, and that changing the named defendant or amending the complaint would not fix the problem.
The detailed version
- 1976 J. J. Deli Grocery Corp. v. Food and Nutrition Service · No. 1:20-cv-10203
- Colleen McMahon
- June 15, 2021
Background
1976 J.J. Deli Grocery Corp. sought judicial review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service decision permanently disqualifying the grocery store from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP, formerly called the food stamp program, allows qualifying households to use benefits to buy food at authorized retailers.
The store filed its complaint on December 4, 2020. Its counsel acknowledged that the deadline for seeking review had expired in November, 30 days after service of the FNS’s final determination. The government noted that the deadline was likely November 5 because the determination was served the day after it was issued. The court had previously allowed the late filing without knowing about the deadline issue.
Motion and ruling
The government moved to dismiss. The plaintiff did not file a response, and the court described the motion as unopposed. The court was willing to treat the complaint as filed against the United States, rather than the Food and Nutrition Service, but concluded that the complaint still had to be dismissed because it was filed more than 30 days after service of the determination.
The court held that the 30-day deadline under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a) is jurisdictional. In other words, the court viewed compliance with the deadline as a condition of its authority to review the agency’s decision. The court also held that the deadline could not be extended because it is part of the government’s limited waiver of protection from lawsuits, and the government had not consented to an extension.
The government’s motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint was dismissed. The court stated that amending the complaint would be futile because an amendment could not cure the jurisdictional problem. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.