Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Barry v. Corrigan

5:13-cv-13185 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: July 24, 2013

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 24, 2013, a group of Michigan residents who were denied Food Assistance Program (FAP) benefits under a "criminal justice disqualification" justification filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Michigan Department of Human Services (MDHS). The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Civil Justice and the ACLU of Michigan, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and federal SNAP law, alleging they were improperly denied food assist…

On July 24, 2013, a group of Michigan residents who were denied Food Assistance Program (FAP) benefits under a "criminal justice disqualification" justification filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Michigan Department of Human Services (MDHS). The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Civil Justice and the ACLU of Michigan, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and federal SNAP law, alleging they were improperly denied food assistance. They sought declarative and injunctive relief, relief notice to members of the class, and attorneys' fees and costs. The case was initially assigned to Judge Bernard A. Friedman but was reassigned to Judge Judith E. Levy on March 13, 2014.

The plaintiffs claimed that without specific information for the reasons or nature of the disqualification, they were not provided proper notice to understand the basis for the decision or a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The letters only instructed them to contact a law enforcement agency to resolve the issue. The plaintiffs alleged the "criminal justice disqualification" violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the substance and application of MDHS’s decision to deny benefits to all people with an outstanding felony warrant violated the “fleeing felon” standard set by the federal government. Michigan’s “fugitive felon” policy and practice disqualified people through a match program without confirming the person was actually sought by law enforcement. Federal SNAP law prohibited this by instead disqualifying only fleeing felons, and only if the government made a finding that law enforcement officials are actively seeking the individual and that the individual knew his or her apprehension was sought and was intentionally fleeing from justice.

The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to provide immediate relief to the requested class and subclass of individuals who relied on FAP benefits and would suffer irreparable harm while they waited for the resolution of the case without the food assistance. On September 25, 2013, Judge Friedman denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction. On October 11, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment.

On October 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification. On November 21, 2013, the plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Hearings for the summary judgment motions were postponed after the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 27. On September 30, 2014, the defendants filed a responsive motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Hearings on the motion were set and held before the court on November 14, 2014.

On January 9, 2015, Judge Levy ruled on all three motions. Judge Levy granted the class certification and ruled for the plaintiffs in summary judgment for all but one plaintiff, who was dismissed. 79 F. Supp. 3d 712.

On January 23, 2015, the defendants moved for reconsideration and a stay pending the outcome of the reconsideration. On March 24, 2015, Judge Levy issued an order denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, stating their motion was more “petulance than substance” and that none of the defendant's four claims had a proper ground for reconsideration. 2015 WL 1322728.

On March 31, 2015, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and requested a motion to stay pending the appeal. On April 7, the Sixth Circuit denied the stay pending appeal.

On May 18, 2015, the plaintiffs motioned an order to show cause, suggesting the defendants should be held in contempt for failing to implement the changes ordered by the court. And on June 5, 2015, Judge Levy denied the defendant’s motion to stay pending the appeal.

On July 1, 2015, the plaintiffs requested expedited post-judgment discovery in order to determine if the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the court’s January 9, March 30 and 31 orders. On September 1, 2015, Judge Levy granted the plaintiffs’ motion for post-judgment discovery and motion for an order to show cause. Judge Levy noted that the plaintiffs had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant had not stopped the conduct declared unlawful and enjoined by the court.

On September 23, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The defendant agreed to work with the plaintiff on implementing the court-ordered changes to their administration of FAP, and the plaintiffs agreed to stipulate the dismissal of their motion to show cause once the changes were implemented. On March 30, 2016, Judge Levy dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion to show cause upon the parties' agreement that the terms of the settlement agreement had been met.

On August 25, 2016, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion and remanded the case for continued enforcement of the permanent injunction.

On February 24, 2017, the parties jointly moved for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $910,908.83 for class counsel. On May 31, 2017, the court granted this award. As of April 21, 2020, this case is ongoing for compliance enforcement purposes.

Summary Authors

Noel Ripberger (9/24/2014)

Kelly Ehrenreich (11/10/2016)

Jake Parker (7/18/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5387391/parties/barry-v-corrigan/


Judge(s)

Daughtrey, Martha Craig (Tennessee)

Friedman, Bernard A. (Michigan)

Grand, David R. (Michigan)

Levy, Judith Ellen (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Aukerman, Miriam (Michigan)

Doig, Jacqueline (Michigan)

Linehan, Katie N. (Michigan)

Nelson, Sofia V (Michigan)

Nichols, Elan S (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Heyse, Kristin M. (Michigan)

Judge(s)

Daughtrey, Martha Craig (Tennessee)

Friedman, Bernard A. (Michigan)

Grand, David R. (Michigan)

Levy, Judith Ellen (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Aukerman, Miriam (Michigan)

Doig, Jacqueline (Michigan)

Linehan, Katie N. (Michigan)

Nelson, Sofia V (Michigan)

Nichols, Elan S (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Heyse, Kristin M. (Michigan)

Morris, William R. (Michigan)

Smith, Joshua S (Michigan)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

5:13-cv-13185

Docket [PACER]

June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

Docket
1

5:13-cv-13185

Class Action Complaint

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

Complaint
35

5:13-cv-13185

U.S. District Court Opinion Denying Injunction and Restraining Order Motion

Barry v. Corrigan

Sept. 25, 2013

Sept. 25, 2013

Order/Opinion
40

5:13-cv-13185

(Proposed) Second Amended Class Complaint

Oct. 28, 2013

Oct. 28, 2013

Complaint
91

5:13-cv-13185

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division Opinion

Jan. 9, 2015

Jan. 9, 2015

Order/Opinion
106

5:13-cv-13185

Opinion and Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying Plainitffs' [95] Motion to Strike, Denying Defendant's [93] Motion for Reconsideration, and Denying Defendant's Motion for Stay

Barry v. Lyon

March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Order/Opinion
110

5:13-cv-13185

Order Regarding Defendant's Compliance with the Court's January 9, 2015 Order

Barry v. Lyon

March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

Order/Opinion
114

5:13-cv-13185

Order Regarding Amended Class Notice [107] and Implementation of the Court's January 9. 2015 Order [91]

Barry v. Lyon

March 31, 2015

March 31, 2015

Order/Opinion
117

15-01390

Opinion

Barry v. Lyon

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

April 7, 2015

April 7, 2015

Order/Opinion
130

5:13-cv-13185

Opinion and Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal

Barry v. Lyon

June 5, 2015

June 5, 2015

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5387391/barry-v-corrigan/

Last updated Sept. 4, 2022, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
1

Complaint

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
1

Complaint

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
1

Complaint

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
2

Application

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
2

Application

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
2

Application

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
2

Application

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
1

Complaint

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
2

Application

July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

RECAP
3

Attorney Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
3

Attorney Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
3

Attorney Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
3

Attorney Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
4

Motion to Certify Class

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
4

Motion to Certify Class

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
4

Motion to Certify Class

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
4

Motion to Certify Class

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
5

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
5

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
5

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
5

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER

Notice to Parties of Consent of a Civil Action before a Magistrate Judge Option

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER

Notice to Parties of Consent of a Civil Action before a Magistrate Judge Option

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER

Notice to Parties of Consent of a Civil Action before a Magistrate Judge Option

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER

Notice to Parties of Consent of a Civil Action before a Magistrate Judge Option

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
3

Attorney Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
4

Motion to Certify Class

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
5

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
6

Notice of Appearance

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER

Notice to Parties of Consent of a Civil Action before a Magistrate Judge Option

July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

PACER
7

Amended Complaint

Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

PACER
7

Amended Complaint

Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

PACER
7

Amended Complaint

Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

PACER
7

Amended Complaint

Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

PACER
7

Amended Complaint

Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

PACER
8

Motion for TRO

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
8

Motion for TRO

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
8

Motion for TRO

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
8

Motion for TRO

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
9

Declaration

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
9

Declaration

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
9

Declaration

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
9

Declaration

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
8

Motion for TRO

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
9

Declaration

Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

PACER
10

Order on Petition/Request/Application

Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

PACER
10

Order on Petition/Request/Application

Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

PACER
10

Order on Petition/Request/Application

Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

PACER
10

Order on Petition/Request/Application

Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

PACER
10

Order on Petition/Request/Application

Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

PACER
12

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
12

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
12

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
12

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
13

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
13

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
13

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
13

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
14

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
14

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
14

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
14

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
15

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
15

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
15

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
15

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
12

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
13

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
14

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
15

Certificate of Service

Aug. 21, 2013

Aug. 21, 2013

PACER
16

Certificate of Service/Summons Returned Executed

Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

PACER
16

Certificate of Service/Summons Returned Executed

Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

PACER
16

Certificate of Service/Summons Returned Executed

Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

PACER
16

Certificate of Service/Summons Returned Executed

Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

PACER
16

Certificate of Service/Summons Returned Executed

Aug. 22, 2013

Aug. 22, 2013

PACER
17

Notice of Hearing on Motion

Aug. 23, 2013

Aug. 23, 2013

PACER
17

Notice of Hearing on Motion

Aug. 23, 2013

Aug. 23, 2013

PACER
17

Notice of Hearing on Motion

Aug. 23, 2013

Aug. 23, 2013

PACER
17

Notice of Hearing on Motion

Aug. 23, 2013

Aug. 23, 2013

PACER
17

Notice of Hearing on Motion

Aug. 23, 2013

Aug. 23, 2013

PACER
18

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
18

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
18

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
18

Notice of Appearance

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
19

Certificate of Service

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
19

Certificate of Service

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
19

Certificate of Service

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
19

Certificate of Service

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
20

Stipulation and Order

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER
20

Stipulation and Order

Aug. 27, 2013

Aug. 27, 2013

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 24, 2013

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All applicants for or recipients of, Michigan’s Food Assistance Program (FAP), Family Independence Program (FIP), State Disability Assistance Program (SDA), Child Day Care (CDC), and Refugee Assistance Program (RAP) who have suffered actual or threatened denial, reduction, or termination of benefits based on the Michigan Department of Human Services’ (DHS’) determination that the applicant or recipient, or a member of their household is ineligible based on a criminal justice disqualification.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Michigan

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Michigan Dept. of Health and Human Services, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 910,908.83

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Reporting

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Government services

Pattern or Practice

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Benefit Source:

Food stamps/SNAP