Kobe v. Nikki Haley
666 F. App'x 281
4th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (“Kobe” and “Mark,” pseudonyms) challenged South Carolina agencies’ administration of the ID/RD Medicaid waiver, alleging wrongful reductions/denials of home-and-community services (ADHC, respite, equipment/assistive technology) and misallocation of funds toward WACs and other projects.
- Plaintiffs pursued administrative appeals; both prevailed on ADHC-eligibility appeals (so services never lapsed). Kobe sought a speech-synthesis augmentative communication device (Tobii) and timely wheelchair repairs; DHHS denied the Tobii and delays continued; a university program later provided a usable Tobii unit that initially was not wheelchair-mounted.
- Plaintiffs sued state officials and agencies under Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related counts, seeking injunctive relief, damages, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees; many defendants included members of the former Budget & Control Board (BCB) and DHHS/DDSN officials.
- The district court dismissed several BCB members on Eleventh Amendment and legislative-immunity grounds and granted summary judgment for remaining defendants mainly on justiciability: holding ADHC eligibility claims moot, respite claim unripe, and systemic/challenge-to-funding claims non-justiciable; it ordered the ACD mounted on Kobe’s wheelchair.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded the ADHC-eligibility claims were moot (administrative reversals), but held equipment and prompt-provision claims (Kobe’s wheelchair and Tobii device) were not moot because defendants failed to show those harms could not reasonably recur; it vacated summary judgment on Counts 1–7 and vacated dismissal of Counts 1–2 as to Governor Haley (official capacity), but affirmed dismissal of several other BCB members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability of ADHC-eligibility claims | ADHC terminations posed ongoing risk; voluntary reversal doesn’t moot claims | Administrative reversals mooted controversy; voluntary cessation or appeal resolved injunctive need | Moot — administrative reversals ended controversy; voluntary-cessation and capable-of-repetition exceptions not met |
| Mootness/ripeness of equipment and prompt-service claims (wheelchair, ACD) | Temporary provision does not moot claims because delays and denials likely to recur; heavy burden on defendants to show nonrecurrence | Provision during litigation mooted claims | Not moot — defendants failed to meet heavy burden; claims relating to Kobe’s equipment remain justiciable and remanded |
| Ripeness of respite-cap limits (Mark) | Caps create credible risk of institutionalization; claim ripe | Effect on Mark speculative; no concrete injury yet | Not ripe — speculative future harm and plaintiff failed to show immediate hardship |
| Eleventh Amendment/Ex parte Young re: BCB members & Governor Haley | Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against BCB members/Governor for ongoing violations; abrogation/waiver arguments for ADA/Rehab Act | BCB members lack special relationship/control to effect relief; Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity suits; some members entitled to legislative immunity | Dismissal affirmed as to Leatherman, Eckstrom, Chellis, Cooper (no effective prospective relief); dismissal vacated as to Governor Haley for Counts 1–2 (abrogation/waiver issue unresolved and not addressed under United States v. Georgia framework) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mowbray v. Kozlowski, 914 F.2d 593 (4th Cir. 1990) (Medicaid is cooperative federal-state program)
- Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1980) (Medicaid program background and federal funding limits)
- Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2007) (state agency roles in South Carolina Medicaid administration)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officers despite Eleventh Amendment)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (voluntary cessation mootness standard; heavy burden to show nonrecurrence)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (scope of Congress’s §5 authority re: Title II ADA in access-to-courts context)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (U.S. 2006) (Georgia framework for evaluating Title II abrogation of state sovereign immunity; claim-by-claim analysis)
- Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013) (voluntary reinstatement of benefits may not moot challenges; risk of reassessment preserves controversy)