United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court on the motions of Defendant
Warren County Department of Human Services Division of
Temporary Assistance and Social Services (Warren County), and
Defendant Work First New Jersey's (State) to dismiss
Plaintiff Matthew Riboldi's Second Amended Complaint (ECF
50 and 51) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons
discussed herein, Defendants' motions to dismiss are
action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by delaying his
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP")
benefits and medical benefits by failing to provide job
training, and by failing to accommodate his disability at his
hearing to determine benefits eligibility. He also alleges
that the failure to accommodate his disabilities violated his
due process rights.
Matthew Riboldi originally applied for disability benefits on
August 1, 2013 in Warren County because he had become
homeless. [SAC at 1; ECF 45]. He applied for food stamps
benefits under SNAP, emergency assistance benefits, general
assistance benefits, and medical assistance benefits.
[Id. at 1]. Warren County granted SNAP benefits and
medical assistance, but denied the other assistance programs.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act by delaying his SNAP benefits for 50 days
and medical assistance benefits for approximately 120 days
because he submitted all necessary paperwork to Warren County
to support his request for disability accommodations.
was found ineligible for both general assistance and
emergency assistance benefits. Warren County denied Plaintiff
general assistance benefits because he had a prior drug
distribution conviction in violation of program requirements.
See N.J.A.C. 10:90-2.8(a)(8) and N.J.A.C.
10:90-18.6. [ECF 37 at 4, Letter from the Department of Human
Services, Final Decision affirming previous decision by the
Agency to deny Petitioner WFNJ/GA)]. Plaintiff appealed and, in
January 2014, the denial of benefits was affirmed by
Administrative Law Judge Gail M. Cookson. [SAC at 3].
contrast, Warren County initially granted Plaintiff SNAP
benefits and Plaintiff received these benefits from December
2013 to June 2015. [SAC at 1, 4]. Warren County did not
exempt Plaintiff from the work/training requirement for SNAP
eligibility because a physician, who examined Plaintiff,
found that he was not mentally or physically disabled and was
able to work. [Def. Warren County's Reply at 3, ECF 56].
Warren County revoked Plaintiffs SNAP eligibility in June
2015 and closed his case because Plaintiff failed to meet
this work/training requirement since Plaintiff failed to
attend mandatory career counseling meetings with Warren
County employees. [SAC at 6-7].
further alleges that Defendants made no attempt to make
reasonable disability accommodations for him, even though
Defendants knew about his disability accommodation needs.
[SAC at 3].
on Defendants' denial of benefits and failure to address
his fair hearing and accommodation request, Plaintiff brings
this present cause of action, alleging:
(1) Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and
(2) Violations of the Fifth and Eleventh Amendments of the
[SAC at 2-3]. Defendants seek dismissal of these claims
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff fails to
plead sufficient facts to maintain claims for violations of
the ADA or due process rights. [ECF 50, 51].
the Court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
and for that reason "we construe his complaint in the
way most favorable to him." Carr v. Sharp, 454
F.2d 271, 272 (3d Cir. 1971).
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court is required to accept as
true all allegations in the Complaint and all reasonable
inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and to view them in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See
Oshiver v. Levin,38 F.3d 1380, 1384 (3d Cir. 1994).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl Corp v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). While
a court will accept well-pleaded allegations as true for the
purposes of the motion, it will not accept bald assertions,
unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences, or sweeping
legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; see also Morse v.