Johnson v. Social Security Administration
Filing
50
ORDER AND REASONS - The 45 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's due process claim is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/5/19. (sbs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THEODORE JOHNSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER: 13-6544
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
SECTION: “E”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Reinstate Administrative Closed Case filed by
Plaintiff Theodore Johnson.1 Plaintiff moves the Court to reopen this civil action and set
a trial on his due process claims. Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, acting Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”), opposes the Motion to Reinstate.2
Before the Court ruled on the Motion to Reinstate, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss.3
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as moot and for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.4 Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss.5
The Motion to Reinstate6 is GRANTED. The Court will reopen this matter and
consider the Motion to Dismiss.7 For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s original complaint in this Court sought judicial review of a
determination by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) that he received an
R. Doc. 45.
R. Doc. 46.
3 R. Doc. 48.
4 Id.
5 R. Doc. 49.
6 R. Doc. 46.
7 R. Doc. 48.
1
2
1
overpayment of disability insurance benefits in the 1970s.8 The complaint additionally
alleged a violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights as a result of the SSA’s withholding
benefits before completion of the administrative appeals process and judicial review.9
This Court affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that Plaintiff
received an overpayment of disability benefits, reversed the Commissioner’s
determination as to the amount of benefits overpaid, and remanded the case to the
Commissioner for a determination, supported by substantial evidence, of the amount of
overpayments.10 On March 31, 2015, Plaintiff appealed the matter to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.11 The Fifth Circuit reversed this Court’s
determination that Plaintiff received an overpayment of disability benefits, finding there
was insufficient evidence to support the Commissioner’s findings, and found it was not
necessary to remand the case to the Commissioner for further findings.12
After a favorable decision from the Fifth Circuit, Plaintiff moved this Court to set a
trial on his due process claim.13 In response, Defendant argues the cause of action should
be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) because Plaintiff’s claim is moot and because this court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.14
LAW AND ANALYSIS
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by
statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claims.”15 A motion to dismiss under Federal
R. Doc. 1.
Id.
10 R. Doc. 28 (adopting Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation); R. Doc. 30 (clarifying the Court’s
Order).
11 R. Doc. 31.
12 Johnson v. Social Security Administration, 631 Fed. App’x 260 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); R. Doc. 44.
13 R. Doc. 45.
14 R. Doc. 46; R. Doc. 48.
15 In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir.
2012).
8
9
2
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.16
Under Rule 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” 17 The
party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the district court
possesses subject-matter jurisdiction.18 The court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1)
jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.19
Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court subject matter jurisdiction to
“cases” and “controversies.”20 The Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement to
demand that “an actual controversy . . . be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the
time the complaint is filed.”21 For a justiciable case or controversy to exist, the Plaintiff
must have standing to bring the claim. A plaintiff has standing when (1) the plaintiff
suffered an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the
complained of conduct; and (3) the alleged injury can be redressed by a favorable
decision.22 A case becomes moot “when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual
relief whatever to the prevailing party.”23
Plaintiff alleges the SSA violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process when
it withheld his Social Security disability benefits before the completion of his
administrative appeal of the overpayment and withholding.24 When the SSA determines
See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).
Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
18 Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
19 Id.
20 U.S. CONST., ART. III, § 2; see Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992)).
21 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S.
395, 401 (1975)).
22 Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
23 Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. 298, 307-08 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
24 R. Doc. 1 at 7.
16
17
3
an individual has been overpaid benefits, it may recover the amount of overpayment by
withholding all or part of future payments to the individual. 25 Pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
404.506(g), the SSA will withhold benefits before the administrative review and appeal
process is completed. Because it determined Plaintiff received a past overpayment of
benefits, the SSA began withholding a portion of Plaintiff’s monthly disability benefit
payments in May of 2010.26 After Plaintiff received a favorable ruling from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the SSA repaid the benefits it withheld and
removed any record of its claim to overpayment from Plaintiff’s Social Security record. 27
Because of the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights, Plaintiff requests
judgment in his favor, damages and legal interest thereon, recovery for the costs and
expenses of the proceeding, and paralegal fees.28 Generally, individuals whose
constitutional rights have been violated by employees of the federal government may
recover money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents.29
However, the Supreme Court has held that social security claimants may not bring Bivens
actions alleging due process violations.30 Money damages are not recoverable from either
the SSA or the Commissioner in her individual capacity.31 Accordingly, “claimants whose
benefits have been fully restored through the administrative process would lack standing
to invoke the Constitution.”32
20 C.F.R. 404.506(g).
R. Doc. 9 at 68.
27 R. Doc. 48-2 at 2.
28 R. Doc. 1 at 8-9.
29 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
30 Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 424 (1988).
31 Becker v. Berryhill, 208 WL 3977889, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2018).
32 Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 424-25; Becker, 2018 WL 3977889, at *4 (finding action would be moot because
Plaintiff’s benefits were restored after termination and Plaintiff could not receive money damages); see also
Maloney v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 02-CV-1725, 2006 WL 1720399, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2006), aff'd, 517
F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Headen v. Sullivan, No. 91-CV-5817, 1992 WL 471168, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
25
26
4
Plaintiff’s claim that the SSA violated his due process rights is moot because he no
longer has an injury that can be redressed by a favorable decision from this Court.
Accordingly, there is no longer a case or controversy, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the matter.33 This Court cannot award damages for an alleged violation of
Plaintiff’s due process rights in the withholding of social security benefits to recoup an
overpayment.34 Plaintiff has been made whole because he has received the previously
withheld money, and all record of the SSA’s claim to overpayment has been removed from
his record.35 As a result, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his due process claim.
Further, Plaintiffs allegations do not demonstrate the SSA violated his due process
rights. The Supreme Court has recognized a statutorily created property interest in the
continued and uninterrupted receipt of social security benefits.36 However, the Supreme
Court has found an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of
benefits. The Supreme Court held that, because “a recipient whose benefits are
terminated is awarded full retroactive relief if he ultimately prevails” on his appeal of the
termination of benefits, due process is not violated when benefits are terminated before a
beneficiary exhausts administrative appeal and judicial review of the decision. 37 The
Ninth Circuit has applied this reasoning to the recoupment of an overpayment of benefits,
finding no due process violation when an overpayment was recouped by withholding
8, 1992)) (“In a social security action seeking payment of benefits, the actual payment of those benefits
generally moots the action.”)
33 U.S. CONST., ART. III, § 2; see Rivera, 283 F.3d at 318; Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 67;
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559-60.
34 Schweiker, 487 U.S. at 424.
35 R. Doc. 48-2 at 2.
36 Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 340 (1976).
37 Id.
5
future benefits before a hearing.38 As a result, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Reopen
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant39 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's due process claim is DISMISSED
AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of April, 2019.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
38
39
Duschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 526 F. App’x 715, 718 (9th Cir. 2013).
R. Doc. 45.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?