Willis v. Social Security Commissioner

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 12/13/11. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
ROBERT S. WILLIS,

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER,
Defendant
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-11-1665

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
I.

Background
Plaintiff Robert S. Willis filed suit against the Social Security Commissioner

(“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) for discontinuing Plaintiff’s Social Security benefits. (Compl.
2, ECF No. 1.) While the contents of Plaintiff’s pro se filings have been far from clear, it
appears that Plaintiff disagrees with the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) decision to
reduce his Supplemental Security Income by $394 per month to account for his receipt of Social
Security benefits and by an additional $244.66 per month because Plaintiff is receiving food and
shelter free of charge. (See Def.’s Mot. Dismiss ¶ 2, ECF No. 10.1) The Commissioner filed a
Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. (Id. 1.) In the alternative, Defendant seeks transfer of this case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. (Id.) Plaintiff filed no response
in opposition to the Commissioner’s motion. No hearing is required. Local Rule 105.6. The

1

Defendant styled the pending Motion as a “Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue.” (Def.’s
Mot. Dismiss 1.) Because this Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss, this Opinion will refer to Defendant’s
Motion as simply a Motion to Dismiss.

motion to dismiss will be granted without prejudice, and the motion for transfer will be denied as
moot.
II.

Legal Standard: Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
A federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim before it can reach the

merits of a case in which the claim is raised. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping
Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Where, as here, the defendant
asserts lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must show that
subject matter jurisdiction exists. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United
States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1)
motion, the district court may “consider evidence outside the pleadings.” Id. (internal citation
omitted). The standard that the nonmoving party must meet to defeat a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is
analogous to the standard for defeating a motion for summary judgment. See id. (internal
citation omitted). A court may grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion “where a claim fails to allege facts
upon which the court may base jurisdiction.” Davis v. Thompson, 367 F. Supp. 2d 792, 799
(D. Md. 2005).
III.

Analysis
Unless the Commissioner otherwise consents, a plaintiff suing under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

must first have exhausted his or her administrative remedies so that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services has made a “final decision” within the meaning of § 405(g). See Matthews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 (1976). The administrative review process “consists of several
steps” that “must be requested . . . in the following order:” initial determination, reconsideration,
hearing before an administrative law judge, Appeals Council review, and federal court review.
20 C.F.R. § 404.900 (a)(1–5) (2011). Thus, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he has sought review

2 

in each of the first four stages and that the Social Security Administration has rendered a
decision adverse to him.
Plaintiff has not met this burden. The Commissioner has provided the Court with a
Notice of Determination Following Reconsideration dated June 17, 2011. (See Def.’s Mot.
Dismiss Ex. A6.) The Court will assume, therefore, that Plaintiff has completed the first two
steps of the process laid out at 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a). However, Plaintiff has provided no
evidence that he has requested a hearing before an administrative law judge or review by the
Appeals Council. Since Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) will be

granted without prejudice. The Commissioner’s Motion for Transfer to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will be denied as moot.
DATED this 13th day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

3