York v. Social Security Administration

Filing 10

ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 8/31/2016. Copy sent to William C York, 617-B N. Wilson Street, Chadbourn, NC 28431 via US Mail on 9/1/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DNISION
No. 7:16-CV-00278-F
WILLIAM C. YORK,
Plaintiff,
V.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 1,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE-3]. The issues
have been fully briefed and are now ripe for ruling. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed his prose complaint in Columbus County Small Claims
Court, North Carolina, naming the Social Security Administration as defendant and claiming that
he was owed $10,000.00. See Complaint [DE-1-3]. The Social Security Administration is an
agency of the United States; thus, the United States is a party to this action. See Notice of
Removal [DE-l]. On July 21, 2016, the United States of America, on behalf of its agency, the
United States Social Security Administration, filed a Notice of Removal with this court, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1444. Id
Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss [DE-3] on July 28, 2016. Plaintiff
responded by filing a Summons [DE-8].

1

Plaintiff has named the Social Security Administration as the defendant in his Federal
Torts Claim Act case, but the only proper defendant in an action filed pursuant to the Federal
Torts Claim Act is the United States because such claims cannot be brought against a federal
agency in its own name. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a), (d)(1).

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Plaintiff became entitled to Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits in June 1993,
and he currently receives those benefits. Moore Decl. 't[4(a). Plaintiff received Supplemental
Security Income benefits at various times from 1993 to 2010, and those benefits were last
terminated in September 2010, due to excess income. Id. 't[4(b). Plaintiff reported not receiving
benefit checks in February, March, and April2011, and Defendant issued courtesy
disbursements. !d. 't[ 4(c).
In July 2011, an overpayment was established due to a duplicate payment of $704. Id.
't[4(d). Defendant recovered the overpayment in September 2011, through a withholding of
benefits. Id.
In February 2013, overpayments of$742, due to a prison suspension, and $704, due to a
duplicate payment, were established. !d. 't[4(e). In April2013, Plaintiff requested a waiver of
the February 2013 overpayments. Id. Defendant denied Plaintiffs waiver request in June 2013,
but scheduled a personal conference to meet with him before making a final decision. Id. In July
2013, Defendant waived the $742 prison suspension overpayment and denied waiver ofthe $704
duplicate payment overpayment. Id. As of July 20, 2016, Plaintiffhad not appealed the denial of
waiver beyond.the personal conference level. Id.
In March 2014, Defendant received a copy of a February 2014 court order entered by the
Scotland County, North Carolina Superior Court, which found that Plaintiff was incompetent and
appointed as his guardian of the person the Scotland County Department of Social Services. !d.

2

~ 4(f). Plaintiffs representative payee2 is Eastern Carolina Payee Service, Inc. !d. ~ 4(g).

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff visited Defendant's Whiteville, North Carolina field
office and filed an application to be his own representative payee. !d.

~

4(h). Defendant denied

the application, and as of July 20, 2016, Plaintiffhad not appealed the denial of his application to
change his representative payee. !d. As of July 18, 2016, neither Plaintiff nor any authorized
representative has any pending or recently concluded administrative claims with Defendant. !d.
~~5-6.

III. DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks dismissal ofPlaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2),
12(b)(4), and 12(b)(5) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim and lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant based on
both lack of and improper service.

A. Standards of Review
1. Rule 12(b)(l)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l) governs motions to dismiss for "lack of subject
matter jurisdiction," which refers to the court's "statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a
case." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (emphasis omitted). The
existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue which must be addressed before the
court can reach the merits of the case. Jones v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 422

2

A representative payee is a person or organization selected by the Social Security
Administration to receive benefits on a beneficiary's behalf because the beneficiary is unable to
manage or direct the management of benefits in his interest. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2001(a),
416.601(a).
3

(4th Cir. 1999). The plaintiffbears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Adams v.
Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). When considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court
"may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding into one for
summary judgment." White Tail Park, Inc. v. Straube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quotation omitted).
2. Pro se pleadings
When a court considers a motion to dismiss involving a pro se party, it should construe
the pleadings liberally to ensure that valid claims do not fail merely for lack oflegal specificity.
See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); see generally Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding that a district court must advise a prose litigant ofhis
right under the summary judgment rule to file opposing affidavits to defeat a defendant's motion
for summary judgment). The court's liberal construction does need not extend to outright
advocacy for the prose party. Gordon, 574 F.2d at 1151. Although pleadings from a prose ·
litigant are viewed with some leniency, they are still bound by the rules of procedure. See McNeil
v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ( "[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in
ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel.").
B. Analysis
This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs complaint alleges conversion. 3 See Compl. [DE-1-3]. Conversion is a tort

3

Conversion is defmed as the wrongful possession of another's property. See Black's
Law Dictionary (lOth ed. 2014).
4

under North Carolina law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l) (The waiver of sovereign immunity in 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b)(l) applies only "under circumstances where the United States, if a private
person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or
omission occurred."); Lake Mary Ltd. P'ship v. Johnston, 551 S.E.2d 546, 552 (N.C. Ct. App.
2001) (defining the elements necessary to establish the tort of conversion in North Carolina).
Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), tort claims against the United States must
first be presented to the appropriate federal agency before suit may be initiated in federal court.
28 U.S. C. § 2675(a). The requirement that an administrative claim be filed is jurisdictional; thus,
it cannot be waived. Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1986).
In this case, Plaintiff has not filed an administrative claim under the FTCA. See
Dell'Aglio Decl.

~~

4-5 (stating that as of July 19, 2016, no administrative claim had been filed

against Defendant by Plaintiff relative to the claims Plaintiff has asserted). Consequently, this
court lacks jurisdiction to hear any allegations that may arise under the FTCA. Having
determined that Defendant is entitled to dismissal because this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, it is not necessary for the court to address Defendant's remaining bases for
dismissal.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing.reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE-3] is ALLOWED. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
This, the ll_ day of August, 2016.
J
S C. FOX
Senior United States District Judge
5