LING
v.
SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a delay in processing a food assistance application, without more, does not constitute a denial of due process actionable under federal law.
Plaintiff sued defendants alleging denial of due process in the handling of his food assistance application. The magistrate judge recommended dismissa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the court on the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, ECF No. 7, and the objections, ECF No. 8. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.
The report and recommendation correctly concludes the plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The objections assert, among other things, that the plaintiff was denied due process in the handling of his application for food assistance. Although not actionable under § 1985(3) for the reasons set out in the report and recommendation, a due process violation, if there was one, could give rise to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But construing this complaint to assert a § 1983 claim would not help, because the plaintiff has not alleged facts suggesting the defendants deprived the plaintiff of life, liberty, or property without due process. Delay in the handling of an initial application for benefits, without more, is not a denial of due process, especially when state law provides adequate procedures for administrative and judicial review of any adverse decision. See Fla. Stat. §§ 409.285 (providing for a hearing if an application for public assistance is not acted on within a reasonable time or denied) & 120.569–57 (providing additional procedures to challenge agency final decisions); Fla. Admin. Code r. 65-2.042; see also Louis Del Favero Orchids, Inc. v. Rivkees, No. 19-14930, 2022 WL 2237663, at *4–6 (11th Cir. June 22, 2022).
This order thus dismisses the complaint. This order grants the plaintiff leave to amend, as he has requested. Any amended complaint must be set out on the court's standard form for pro se § 1983 claims and must be clearly labeled as an amended complaint. If, as appears likely, the plaintiff still is unable to state a federal claim on which relief can be granted, the case will be dismissed.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court's opinion.
2. The complaint is dismissed.
3. The plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint by May 14, 2025.
4. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on April 23, 2025.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ling v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 2022 WL 2237663 (N.D. Fla. 2025)…public assistance is not acted on within a reasonable time or denied) & 120.569–57 (providing additional procedures to challenge agency final decisions); Fla. Admin. Code r. 65-2.042; see also Louis Del Favero Orchids, Inc. v. Rivkees, No. 19-14930, 2022 WL 2237663, at *4–6 (11th Cir. June 22, 2022). This order thus dismisses the complaint. This order grants the plaintiff leave to amend, as he has requested. Any amended complaint must be set out on the court's standard form for pro se § 1983 claims and must b…
Authorities Cited
- Ling v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 2022 WL 2237663 (N.D. Fla. 2025)