Torres v. San Francisco Human Services Agency
4:18-cv-07415
| N.D. Cal. | Dec 6, 2019Background
- Torres received CAAP/PAES benefits administered by San Francisco DHS and was warned in written notices (Sept. 13 and Oct. 13, 2016) that failure to submit monthly Earned Income and Asset Reports would delay or discontinue benefits.
- Torres had a hearing request and appointments scheduled in late Aug–Sept 2016; he missed the Sept. 29 appointment and later cancelled a scheduled fair hearing because of acute back pain; he submitted a report on Oct. 20, 2016 but benefits were still discontinued effective Sept. 30, 2016.
- Torres filed administrative fair hearing requests; County denied a subsequent hearing request on grounds he had earlier withdrawn his prior hearing request; benefits were ultimately restored on Feb. 3, 2017.
- Torres sued the San Francisco Human Services Agency and Trent Rhorer (official capacity) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process and a Monell claim; the case was removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Torres (pro se) missed the initial opposition deadline, the court discharged the order to show cause, and considered his later filing as his opposition.
- The court granted the motion in full, dismissing Rhorer (official capacity) as redundant, rejecting the due process and Monell claims, and denied leave to amend as futile; the case was closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trent Rhorer may be sued in his official capacity separately | Torres named Rhorer (official capacity) as defendant | Rhorer in official capacity is equivalent to suing the City; City is proper defendant | Dismissed Rhorer with prejudice as duplicative of the City (Kentucky v. Graham) |
| Whether termination violated procedural due process under § 1983 | Torres says he was effectively deprived because he could not comply or obtain active assistance and never received an actual hearing before termination | Defendants say Torres received adequate notice and the opportunity for a fair hearing (which he cancelled) | Dismissed with prejudice: County provided constitutionally sufficient notice and opportunity for hearing (Goldberg) |
| Whether Torres stated a Monell claim against the County | Torres alleges HSA acted under color of law in terminating benefits, making County liable | Defendants argue Torres pleads no municipal policy, custom, deliberate indifference, or ratification by a policymaker | Dismissed with prejudice: no underlying constitutional violation and no facts showing policy, custom, or deliberate indifference (Monell; City of Canton) |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Torres did not propose additional facts in opposition | Defendants argue dismissal proper; plaintiff’s filings lacked factual support | Court denied leave to amend as futile (Lopez v. Smith standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (due process requires opportunity for a hearing before termination of public assistance)
- Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires municipal policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (failure to train actionable only where deliberate indifference shown)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (official-capacity suit is a suit against the governmental entity)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive motion to dismiss)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would be futile)