Fells v. United States
627 F.3d 1250
7th Cir.2010Background
- In 2008, USDA investigated Fells's store for suspected SNAP trafficking based on an automated monitoring program.
- Investigation found 71 transactions over $30 and many even-dollar transactions, suggesting irregular redemptions.
- USDA concluded Fells trafficked in food stamps and permanently disqualified his store from SNAP under 7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)(B).
- Fells appealed within the agency; USDA affirmed its disqualification on August 7, 2008.
- District court, with Fells proceeding pro se, held that Fells bore the burden to prove the action invalid.
- Trial evidence included store photos, inventory receipts, and purchasing patterns; district court found explanations unpersuasive and upheld disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden of proof in a §2023(a)(13) trial de novo? | Fells argues agency has no burden and he need not disprove beyond evidence. | USDA contends store owner bears burden to prove invalidity. | Store owner bears the burden. |
| Whether the district court properly allocated the burden and considered evidence anew. | Fells contends de novo review should reexamine agency merits with less burden. | United States argues de novo review preserves burden on owner to show invalidity. | Burden correctly allocated; review anew on factual validity. |
| Did Fells prove by preponderance that the USDA action was invalid? | Fells claims lack of evidence supporting trafficking. | USDA evidence sufficient to support trafficking finding. | Fells failed to prove invalidity by a preponderance. |
| Were the district court's factual determinations clearly erroneous? | Fells asserts district court erred in evaluating explanations. | USDA-supported findings remain credible and persuasive. | Findings not clearly erroneous; support upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redmond v. United States, 507 F.2d 1007 (5th Cir.1975) (presumption of validity; burden on store owner to challenge agency action)
- Abdel v. United States, 670 F.2d 73 (7th Cir.1982) (burden on plaintiff to prove invalidity in program actions)
- Estremera v. United States, 442 F.3d 580 (7th Cir.2006) (store owner bears burden in §2023(a)(13) review)
- McGlory v. United States, 763 F.2d 309 (7th Cir.1985) (trial de novo requires fresh record review of factual determinations)
- Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir.1997) (trial de novo framework for evaluating agency actions)