Case: Yuan Jen Cuk v. Lackner

3:72-00298 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 17, 1972

Closed Date: 1977

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 1972, a permanent resident alien of the United States brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of California's Medically Indigent Law, Calif.Wel. & Inst.Code § 14005.6(a)(3). Plaintiff alleged that the Law violated the Equal Protection Clause in that it conditioned eligibility for state indigent health care services on either being a U.S. citizen or having been in the U.S. for fi…

In 1972, a permanent resident alien of the United States brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of California's Medically Indigent Law, Calif.Wel. & Inst.Code § 14005.6(a)(3). Plaintiff alleged that the Law violated the Equal Protection Clause in that it conditioned eligibility for state indigent health care services on either being a U.S. citizen or having been in the U.S. for five years. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification.

A three-judge panel (consisting of Judges William G. East, Montgomery O. Koelsch, and William T. Sweigert) was convened in the District Court to determine the constitutionality of the Law. On June 29, 1972, the District Court (Judge Sweigert) certified a plaintiff class consisting of "all resident aliens of California whose applications for Medi-Cal aid have been denied since October 1, 1971 solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 14005.6(a)(3)." The Court found that that statute denied Plaintiffs equal protection and enjoined its enforcement. Yuan Jen Cuk v. Brian, 355 F.Supp. 133 (N.D. Cal. 1972). Defendant appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for decision by the three-judge panel. Yuan Jen Cuk v. Lackner, 537 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1976).

The three-judge panel heard the case on remand. On July 25, 1977, the panel issued its opinion and concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to retroactive monetary relief for wrongfully denied benefits because the state enjoyed 11th Amendment immunity. As such, Plaintiffs were entitled only to prospective injunctive relief. The challenged section of the Medically Indigent Law, § 14005.6, however, had been repealed in its entirety while the case was on appeal. As such, the panel determined that the remaining case issues were moot and that the case should be dismissed. Yuan Jen Cuk v. Lackner, 448 F.Supp. 4 (N.D. Cal. 1977).

Summary Authors

Stephen Imm (8/23/2007)

People


Judge(s)

East, William G. (Oregon)

Ely, Walter Raleigh Jr. (California)

Goodwin, Alfred Theodore (California)

Hamlin, Oliver Deveta Jr. (California)

Koelsch, Montgomery Oliver (Idaho)

Smith, Russell Evans (Montana)

Sweigert, William Thomas (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Chew, Martin S. (California)

Lee, Patricia D. (California)

Moon, David C (California)

Judge(s)

East, William G. (Oregon)

Ely, Walter Raleigh Jr. (California)

Goodwin, Alfred Theodore (California)

Hamlin, Oliver Deveta Jr. (California)

Koelsch, Montgomery Oliver (Idaho)

Smith, Russell Evans (Montana)

Sweigert, William Thomas (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Chew, Martin S. (California)

Lee, Patricia D. (California)

Moon, David C (California)

Rapport, David J. (California)

Saltzman, Andrea (California)

Siedman, Jack (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Condas, Joanne (California)

Rabin, Joanne Condas (California)

Rubin, Asher (California)

Younger, Evelle J. (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Curry, F. Hayden (California)

Petrocelli, Wm. (California)

Sweet, Clifford (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:72-00298

Memorandum of Decision

Yuan Jen Cuk v. Brian

355 F.Supp. 133

June 29, 1972

June 29, 1972

Order/Opinion

75-01457

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

537 F.2d 1064

June 15, 1976

June 15, 1976

Order/Opinion

3:72-00298

Memorandum of Decision

448 F.Supp. 4

July 25, 1977

July 25, 1977

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated July 22, 2022, 3:14 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 17, 1972

Closing Date: 1977

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Permanent resident aliens who sought benefits under California's Medically Indigent Law.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

State Department of Health Care Services, State

California Department of Social Welfare, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1977 - None

Issues

General:

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

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Status/Classification