Ford v. Astrue

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 14 MOTION for Reconsideration re 10 Order of Partial Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2)(B),, filed by Plaintiff Anthony B. Ford, 24 Amended MOTION for Release of Funds filed by Plaintiff Anthony B. Ford, 1 MOTION for Writ of Mandamus filed by Plaintiff Anthony B. Ford. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Anthony Ford for a writ of mandamus [Doc. # 1] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motions for reconsideration and for release of funds [Doc. # 14 and # 24] are denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/31/12. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY B. FORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:12-CV-65 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the petition of Anthony B. Ford for a writ of
mandamus to compel payment of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and his
motions for reconsideration and for release of funds. 1 Respondent, Com missioner of
Social Security Michael J. Astrue, opposes the issuance of the writ.
I. Background
Petitioner was arrested in June 1995, and was held in jail pending trial in
February of 1997. At trial, petitioner was convicted of several felonies. He is currently
an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri.
Prior to his arrest, petitioner received monthly disability benefits in the form of
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The Social Security Administration discontinued
those benefits in March 1996, after learning of petitioner’s incarceration. Respondent
states that a Notice of Planned Action was mailed to petitioner at the jail prior to the
suspension of his benefits. The notice informed petitioner of the planned suspension,

1

The majority of petitioner’s claims have been dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) as legally frivolous or failing to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief
may be granted. [Doc. # 9]. The only remaining claim concerns the Social Security
Administration’s discontinuation of petitioner’s Supplemental Security Income (SSI) during
petitioner’s pre-trial detention.

as well as his right to appeal. Petitioner argues that he did not receive this notice.
Petitioner further argues that his benefits were wrongfully terminated prior to his
conviction, and requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent
to pay the SSI benefits withheld during his pretrial detention.
II. Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, district courts have “original jurisdiction of any action
in the nature of mandam us to compel an officer or employee of the United States or
any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” The writ of mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy, and therefore must be issued only in extraordinary
circumstances. 17 Am . Jur. Pl. & Pr. Forms Mandamus §1. “In order to insure that the
writ will issue only in extraordinary circumstances [the United States Supreme Court]
has required that a party seeking issuance have no other adequate means to attain the
relief he desires, and that he satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance
of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S.
33, 35 (1980) (citations and internal quotations omitted). See also Heckler v. Ringer,
466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984); Taylor v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The
writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has
exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear
nondiscretionary duty.” (quoting Hatcher v. Heckler, 772 F.2d 427, 432 (8th Cir.
1985))).
In this case, petitioner has shown neither exhaustion of alternative remedies nor
a clear right to the relief he seeks. Petitioner did not pursue the administrative appeals
process when he was notified that his benefits were suspended in 1996. 52 Am. Jur.
2d Mandam us § 38 (“writ of m andam us will not be issued even though another
available remedy is not available at the time it is applied for if the petitioner had a clear

-2-

legal remedy, adequate to enforce his or her rights, which he or she failed to pursue.”).
Petitioner insists he never received notice of the termination and his right to appeal,
and respondent insists that notice was mailed to the city jail. Regardless, petitioner
cannot meet the final requirement for the issuance of the writ, for he cannot show that
he had a right to SSI benefits during his pretrial detention.
An individual is “not eligible for SSI benefits for any month throughout which [he
or she is] a resident of a public institution as defined in §416.201.”

20 C.F.R. §

416.211(a)(1). A “public institution” is “an institution that is operated by or controlled
by the Federal government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State such as a city
or county.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.201. A resident of a public institution is defined as “a
person who can receive substantially all of his or her food and shelter while living in a
public institution.”

20 C.F.R. § 416.201 .

Petitioner was a resident of a public

institution---the city jail---during his pretrial detention. Therefore, he was not entitled
to SSI benefits during the months of his detention, and his petition for the writ of
mandamus must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Anthony Ford for a writ of
mandamus [Doc. # 1] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s m otions for reconsideration and for
release of funds [Doc. # 14 and # 24] are denied.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 31st day of December, 2012.

-3-