Hilton v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 2

ORDERED that the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the deficiencies by affirmatively demonstrating that Plantiff has secured a final decision from the Commissioner of Social Security and that he commenced the action within 60 days after mailing the notice of that decision. This showing must be made within 21 days from the date of this Order. Abent such a showing, the 1 Complaint filed by Gregory Maverick Hilton must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to amend the caption of the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/1/13. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
GREGORY MAVERICK HILTON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV413-145

V.

Carolyn W. Colvin,

Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,'
Defendant.

ORDER
Proceeding pro se and having paid this Court's filing fee, Gregory
Maverick Hilton asks this Court to review the Social Security
Administration's denial of his social security disability claim. Doe. 1.
Hilton, however, has failed to demonstrate that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over his claim. "[W]hen a federal court concludes
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
complaint in its entirety." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514
(2006). "Moreover, courts . . . have an independent obligation to

The Court has amended the caption to show the proper title and name of the party
plaintiff seeks to sue. The Clerk is DIRECTED to amend the caption accordingly.
All subsequent filings shall conform.
1

determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence
of a challenge from any party." Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Because
courts have limited jurisdiction, they are presumed to lack subject matter
jurisdiction unless the plaintiff shows the contrary. Kivisto v. Kulmala,
497 F. App'x 905, 906 (11th Cir. 2012); Thomas v. Office of Disability

Adjudication and Review, 2012 WL 5987555 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 29,
2012).
Congress limited jurisdiction over Social Security's disability benefits
decisions:
Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party,
irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of
such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after
the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further
time as the Commissioner may allow. . . . The court shall have
power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a
judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security with or without remanding the
case for a rehearing.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). For that matter, "[n]o findings of
fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be reviewed by any person,
tribunal, or government agency except as herein provided." 42 U.S.C. §
405(h). Hence, Hilton may bring an action against the Commissioner

only if he has been a party to a hearing before the Commissioner (or
Administrative Law Judge) and the Commissioner has made a "final
decision" on his claim. Hicks v. Astrue, 2013 WL 309860 at * 1 (S.D. Ga.
Jan. 25, 2013); Thomas, 2012 WL 5987555 at * 1. He must affirmatively
show that he has administratively exhausted his claim.

Hicks, 2013 WL

309860 at * 1.
Hilton has failed to make the required showing. He alleges only
that he has been denied benefits and requests judicial review "to ensure
that my rights were not improperly denied by the Commissioner of Social
Security." But he has not alleged that the Commissioner's decision was
final. Nor does he supply factual allegations from which the Court can
infer that a § 405(g) final decision has issued. Nor, finally, can the Court
determine whether Hilton filed this action within 60 days of the final
decision denying him benefits (i.e., he has neither cited to nor supplied a
final agency decision).'
2

This is a critical pleading component:
Because the appeal provision set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) constitutes a
waiver of sovereign immunity, courts must strictly construe the applicable
time limit. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479, 106 S. Ct. 2022, 90
L.Ed.2d 462 (1986). See also Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir.
2000) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the commissioner for
untimely filing of one day). Accordingly, a complaint appealing the
3

The Court will afford Hilton an opportunity to correct these
deficiencies by affirmatively demonstrating that he has secured a "final
decision" from the Commissioner of Social Security and that he
commenced this action within 60 days after mailing the notice of that
decision. This showing must be made within 21 days from the date of
this Order. Absent such a showing, this case must be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED this /day of July, 2013.

'CNPrED ~STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Commissioners denial of an application for social security benefits must allege
the dates of the plaintiffs application(s) and the related denial(s). Cook v.
Astrue, 2012 WL 812380 at *3 (E.D.Cal. March 9, 2012); Sanchez v. Astrue,
2011 WL 1549307 at *2....3 (E.D.Cal.2011). The plaintiff must also allege that
he or she appealed to the Appeals Council, setting forth the application date,
the decision date, and the outcome. Id; see also Pierre v. Comm. of Soc. Sec.,
2012 WL 1066811 at * 3 (S.D. Fla.2012) (requiring a plaintiff to allege facts
supporting the conclusion that Commissioner rendered a final decision in the
application below).

Cribbet v. Comm'r of Soc Sec., 2012 WL 5308044 at * 2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012).
4