Chris Walters, ) Chris Walters, )
Plaintiff Pro Se ) Appellant )
) )
vs. ) vs. )
) )
Burton F. Raiford, ) Linda Blessings )
Defendant ) Appellee
CIV NO SA93CA11115 Docket USDC-AZ: 93-784 TUC
Recieved Dec 28 1993 Docket USCA: 94-105180
Ruling of Magistrate John Primo
US Magistrate John PrimoWalters v. Raiford USDC,WDT
states that the State of Texas had the right to take such action based on ruling of US 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals case Victoria V Miller
Title 18 USC 1701 Obstruction of Mail Generally
Federal Crime attempts to obstruct or impede operation of federal law.
What role does US Department of Justice play in embezzling funds and creating overcharges to the
USDA food stamp program? Does evidence exist for Judicial Misconduct Complaint
before 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals? Does evidence exist to investigate US Department of
Justice or impeach US Attorney General before US Congress Judiciary Committee. Does evidence exist for UNHCHR to investigate
US Attorney General or seek fugitive warrants for arrest before the World Court?
Memorandum and Recommendation
Before the Court is the complaint filed by plaintiff Chris Walters alleging that defendant Burton F. Raiford, the Director of the Texas
Department of Human Services, denied Walters due process in the distribution of food stamps. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b) authorizes the dismissal of
an in forma pauperis proceeding which is frivolous. Because Walter's complaint, and the attachement thereto, demonstrate that this cause is
frivolous the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed. The Food Stamp Act, Title 7 U.S.C. Sectin 2011 est seq., provides a state-
administered program for distributing federally funded food stamps. Compliance with the Act is voluntary. The states can comply with the Act's
conditions or forego the benefits of federal funding.
|
Chris Walters, ) Chris Walters, )
Plaintiff Pro Se ) Appellant )
) )
vs. ) vs. )
) )
Burton F. Raiford, ) Linda Blessings )
Defendant ) Appellee
CIV NO SA93CA11115 Docket USDC-AZ: 93-784 TUC
Recieved Dec 28 1993 Docket USCA: 94-105180
Memorandum and Recommendation
Victorian V. Miller, 813 F.2d 718, 719 (5th Cir. 1987). Food stamp benefits are a matter of
statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them; thus, such entitlements are a form of property protected by the Due Process Clause.
Atkins V. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128, 105 S. Ct. 2520, 2528, 86 L. Ed. 2d 81 (1985). A cause of action does not exist under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
to enforce state compliance with the Act. Victorian v Miller, 813 F.2d 724.
Walters alleges that he has attempted, unsucessfully, to close his food stamp file in texas so that he can recieve food stamps in Arizona. He also
makes reference in his complaint to an unsuccessful effort to close his food stamp file in Arizona. Attached to his complaint in this case is a complaint
and memorandum of law for a case In United States District Court in Tucson,Arizona, in which plaintiff complains that the Arizona authorities refused
to close his Arizona food stamp file. On December 17, 1993, the Arizona case was dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim. A letter to Walters,
dated December 15, 1993, from the Arizona Family Assistance Administration indicates that his application for food stamps in Arizona was approved and
that for the months of January-May, 1994, Walters will recieve $112.00 per month in food stamps. The letter reflects that Walter's food stamps case
would be open until Janurary 1, 1994, so no food stamps could be awarded for December, 1993 in Arizona. In his Application to
Walters asserts jurisdiction under Title 28 USCS Section 1331 (Federal question) Because the Courts
of Appeals in Victorian found a right of action under Section 1983, it did not consider whether a private
right of action, for which Section 1331 would provide jurisdiction, can be implied under the Act. 813 F.2d
at 724 n.13 Jurisdiction over Section 1983 claim exists pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 (a)(3).
Walters's failure to cite the correct statute is not, given his pro se statute, fatal to his case.
|
proceeding in forma pauperis in this case. Walters indicates he recieved $112.00 in food stamps in December, 1993. At no time does Walters allege that
he has been denied food stamp benefits. He merely complaints, as he did in Arizona federal court, or delays in the closing of his food stamp cases in
each state. His submission reflects reciept of food stamps in December, 1993, presumably in Texas, and the commencement of food stamps benefits in Arizona in
Janurary, 1994. He has not been deprived of any property interest. His complaint is frivolous.
Recommendations
It is therefore, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the
above-entitled and numbered cause be DISMISSED.
Instruction for Service and
Notice of Right to Appeal/Object
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them by
Certified Mail, Return Reciept Requested. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to this report must serve and file written
objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy unless this time pepriod is modified by the District Court.
party filing objections must specifically identify those findings,conclusions, or recommendations to which objections are being made and the
basis for such objections; the District Court need not consider frivolous,conclusive or general objections. Such party shall file the objection with
the clerk of the court, and serve the obections on the Magistrate Judge and all other parties. A party's failure to file such objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court. Nettles.
V. Wainwright, 677 F 2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982) See Thomas V AM, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S. Ct 466, 472, 88 L Ed 2d 435 (1985). Additionaly, any failure
and recommendation contained in this Memorandum and Recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing
the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court, expect upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles, 677 F.2. at 410
Signed this 30th day of December, 1983.
Signed JOHN W. PRIMOMO
United States Magistrate Judge
(***Arrived Certified US Mail 1-3-94
Tallahassee, Fla)Appeal file shortly
later-no reply recieved.
|
