Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Market v. United States

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

January 8, 2020




         I. Introduction

         This matter is before the court on the unopposed motion for summary judgment of the United States ("the government") (Dkt. No. 30). The Plaintiff, Almonte Market ("Plaintiff"), commenced this action, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13), seeking judicial review of the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") Food and Nutrition Service's ("FNS") decision to permanently disqualify it from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Program ("SNAP") because the store likely trafficked in SNAP benefits. The parties have consented to this court's jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the government's motion for summary judgment.

         II. Background

         A. The Store

         The Almonte Market was a small (not more than 1, 125 square feet) grocery store located in Holyoke, Massachusetts (Administrative Record "A.R." at 68, 90, 121, 256).[1] Plaintiff sold general staple items -- breads and cereals, dairy products, frozen foods, canned fruits and vegetables, produce, and canned meats and fish -- tobacco products, alcohol, deli meats and cheeses, made-to-order sandwiches, hot food, pet food, and household supplies (A.R. at 67, 92, 93, 96, 121). The store did not have shopping baskets or shopping carts available for customers' use (A.R. at 67, 90). A large slide-top floor freezer stood in front of the one small, "cluttered" checkout counter (A.R. at 109, 113, 130, 256).

         The FNS authorized Plaintiff's participation in SNAP on June 26, 2003 (A.R. at 118). The store had one SNAP point-of-sale device (A.R. at 91, 256).

         B. SNAP

         "Congress established SNAP 'to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households.'" Irobe v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 890 F.3d 371, 375 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting 7 U.S.C. § 2011). See 7 C.F.R. § 271.1. Approved retail food stores may accept SNAP benefits as payment for eligible food items. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(k), 2013(a).

         Households meeting the requirements to obtain SNAP benefits use electronic benefit transfer ("EBT") cards, which are similar to debit cards, to purchase eligible food items at authorized stores. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2012(i), 2014, 2016. "In a typical SNAP transaction, a cashier rings up the total food purchases, a household member pays using her EBT card through a point-of-sale device, and the funds in the household's SNAP account are electronically transferred to the store's bank account." Irobe, 890 F.3d at 375.

         "[A]ny food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption" are eligible to be purchased with SNAP benefits. 7 U.S.C. § 2012(k); 7 C.F.R. § 271.2. Qualified households are not permitted to use their EBT cards to obtain cash. See Irobe, 890 F.3d at 375 (citing 7 U.S.C. § 2012(k); 7 C.F.R. § 271.2).

         A store that exchanges SNAP benefits for noneligible items, including cash, engages in unlawful trafficking. See J & L Liquor, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 16-10717, 2017 WL 4310109, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2017) ("Trafficking is the term for a number of fraudulent schemes including buying, selling, stealing, or otherwise effecting an exchange of SNAP benefits issued and accessed via . . . EBT cards for cash or consideration other than eligible food.") (citing 7 C.F.R. § 271.2). "For instance, a store trafficks when it 'accept[s] food stamps for sales that never took place,' allowing its customers to receive 'cash rather than merchandise.'" Irobe, 890 F.3d at 375 (alteration in original) (quoting Idias v. United States, 359 F.3d 695, 698-99 (4th Cir. 2004)).

         The FNS administers and polices SNAP. See Hamdi Halal Mkt., LLC v. United States, 947 F.Supp.2d 159, 161-62 (D. Mass. 2013).

The [FNS] tracks each SNAP household's use of its SNAP benefits through the EBT point of sale system found in each SNAP retailer's location. Each time a SNAP participant uses his EBT card as payment, the EBT point of sale system collects and sends data to the [FNS]. The [FNS] aggregates the data and analyzes it though the Anti-Fraud Locator Using Electronic Benefit Transfer Retailer Transactions ("ALERT") system. The ALERT system is designed to detect suspicious SNAP benefit usage indicative of fraud or SNAP benefit trafficking.

Famous Int'l Mkt. v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4897, 2018 WL 3015249, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2018).

         If the FNS detects a statistically unusual pattern of SNAP transactions at a SNAP-authorized store, it typically refers the matter to a program specialist who arranges for a contractor to visit the store and conduct an on-site investigation. After completing her review of the relevant EBT data and whatever reports emerge from the on-site investigation, the program specialist makes a recommendation to the FNS section chief. If this recommendation is for further action, the section chief sends a charge letter detailing the allegations to the store and affords the store an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the FNS issues its determination.

         Irobe, 890 F.3d at 375-76 (citing 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(b), (c)). "If . . . the FNS determines that a store has engaged in trafficking, the store is permitted to pursue an appeal to an administrative review officer ('ARO')." Madi v. United States, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-30064-KAR, 2018 WL 3130641, at *2 (D. Mass. June 26, 2018) (citing 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(3); 7 C.F.R. §§ 279.1(a)(2), 279.5)). The store has the right to appeal the ARO's final decision to a federal district court. See 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13); 7 C.F.R. § 279.7.

         The FNS is required to permanently disqualify a firm from participating in SNAP if it finds that personnel of the firm have trafficked. See 7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)(B); 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(e)(1)(i). "In certain circumstances, [however, ] the agency may impose civil monetary penalties instead of a ban." Madi, 2018 WL 3130641, at *2. See 7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)(B); 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(i).

         C. The FNS Investigation and Disqualification of Plaintiff

         In the instant case, after the "Almonte Market appeared on the EBT ALERT System as having met patterns consistent with possible EBT trafficking violations," a program specialist in the Investigative Analysis Branch of the FNS analyzed Plaintiff's transaction data for the period from August 2016 to March 2017 and compared that data with the EBT data from similar stores (A.R. at 117-43). A contractor conducted an on-site visit in May 2017 (A.R. at 90-96, 120). The FNS's analysis revealed two patterns that it deemed to be consistent with trafficking: rapid and repetitive transactions from the same household account in a short period of time; and excessively large transactions (A.R. at 122-24). Consequently, on June 20, 2017, the Section Chief of the FNS Retailer Operations Division sent Plaintiff a charge letter with attachments notifying it that the FNS was charging it with trafficking in SNAP benefits and inviting its response (A.R. at 172-204). Plaintiff's attorney's response to the charge letter included seven pages of register receipts (A.R. at 207-11, 214-24). After receiving the store's answer to the charge including a request for hardship consideration, on August 1, 2017, the FNS determined that Plaintiff had engaged in trafficking and imposed the penalty of permanent disqualification from participation in SNAP (A.R. at 227, 235-36).

         Plaintiff filed a timely written request for an administrative review of the FNS's decision to permanently disqualify it from participating in SNAP and, thereafter, submitted approximately fifty-three pages of inventory invoices from its wholesale distributor (A.R. at 238-40; Dkt. No. 36-2 at 2-55). On February 8, 2018, [2] the ARO affirmed the determination that the store had engaged in trafficking and the decision to impose a permanent disqualification (A.R. at 250-62).

         Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court challenging the FNS's determination that it had engaged in trafficking (Dkt. No. 1). See 7 U.S.C. ยง 2023(a)(13). The unredacted administrative record was submitted to the court under seal (Dkt. No. 36). The government has moved for summary judgment and has submitted a statement of undisputed facts, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.