Johnson v. Social Security Administration
Filing
34
FINAL ORDER: The Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the R&R. ECF No. 23. The SSA's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (ECF No. 27) is DENIED. Copies of this Order sent as DIRECTED on 8.7.18 as DIRECTED. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 8/2/2018. (epri)
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
AUG - 7 2018
Norfolk Division
CLERK US DiSTRlCT COURT
NORFOi.K, VA
VERONICA M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
CivilNo.2:17-cv-575
V.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
FINAL ORDER
Plaintiff Veronica M. Johnson ("Plaintiff) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
659(a) seeking to enforce a state court garnishment order against the Social Security
Administration ("SSA") and requesting that this Court compel the SSA to pay her sixty-five
percent of her former husband's alleged right to a monthly social security retirement benefit.
ECF No. 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b), and the Local Rules, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for a
Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). ECF No. 17.
In the R&R filed on April 2, 2018, the Magistrate Judge concluded that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.
ECF No. 23. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended
granting the SSA's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) (ECF No. 7) and dismissing the case without prejudice. ECF No. 23 at 7.
By copy of the Report, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the
finds and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
Id.
The Court has received
Plaintiffs timely Objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R (ECF No. 25), as well as the SSA's
Response (ECF No. 26).
1
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court reviews de novo any part
of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to which a party has properly objected. See also
Wimmer v. Cook, 11A F.2d 68, 73 (4th Cir. 1985) ("[A]ny individual findings of fact or
recommendations for disposition by [the Magistrate Judge], if objected to, are subject to final de
novo determination... by a district judge
")•
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits a defendant to challenge a complaint on
the basis that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving
that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United
States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). "In determining whether jurisdiction exists, the
district court is to regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may
consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary
judgment." Id,
II.
BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff obtained a judgment in Portsmouth City Circuit Court
against her former husband, Christopher Lee Johnson, for $83,500.00, plus costs and interest, for
xmpaid spousal support. See ECF No. 3-1 at 13. On October 5,2017, the Circuit Court entered a
garnishment order directing that the SSA pay directly to Plaintiff sixty-five percent of the
regularly monthly social security benefit "if [Mr. Johnson] is entitled to receive [such benefits,]
each month continuing until fiirther order of this Court." Id. at 15-16. On October 16, 2017, the
SSA sent Ms. Johnson a letter informing her that Mr. Johnson was not receiving any form of
"Social Security Retirement, Survivors, or Disability insurance payments,"
Id. at 7.
Ms.
Johnson replied by stating that her ex-husband had "a present... unconditional right to receive a
monthly payment [] fi-om the Social Security Administration NOW . . . ." Id. at 1 (emphasis in
original). The SSA responded by informing her that her request for garnishment could not be
fulfilled at the time because Mr. Johnson was not receiving a monthly benefit "nor is he required
by law to file for such benefit." Id. at 6.
On October 30, 2017, the Circuit Court served on the
SSA a "Writ of Fieri Facias" directing the SSA to "levy upon the goods, chattels, current money,
bank notes and real estate" of Mr. Johnson. ECF No. 10-1 at 3-5. The Sheriffs return notes that
the writ "placed [a] lien on future income." Id. at 5. On December 11, 2017, the SSA sent
another letter to Ms. Johnson noting that Mr. Johnson was not currently receiving any
Retirement, Survivors, or Disability insurance payments, and that the writ did not change the
SSA's previous notification. ECF No. 10-1 at 1.
On November 6, 2017, Ms. Johnson filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 659. Her
Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment against the SSA requiring the SSA to immediately
commence the payment of Social Security insurance benefits "which spousal support judgment
debtor [Mr. Johnson] has a current right to be paid ...." ECF No. 3 at 8. The SSA then filed a
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). ECF No. 1.
As reviewed above, the Magistrate Judge's R&R recommended that the Motion to
Dismiss be granted and the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
ECF No. 23 at 7.
Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R (ECF No. 25), to which the SSA filed
a Response (ECF No. 26). It appears that Plaintiff objects generally to the Magistrate Judge's
R&R, arguing that the "[Fourteenth] Amendment due process clause [of the United States
Constitution protects Plaintiff] from having to wait to enforce her spousal support judgment"
until Mr. Johnson applies for Social Security benefits. ECF No. at 25 at 14.
III.
ANALYSIS
As the R&R correctly recognized, 42 U.S.C. § 659 waives the sovereign immunity of
federal agencies in order to honor state court garnishment orders for the provision of child
support and alimony, 42 U.S.C. § 659(a). However, § 659 provides neither a federal cause of
action nor an avenue for bringing suit in federal court against federal agencies. See Stephens v.
U.S. Dep't ofNavy, 589 F.2d 783, 783 (4th Cir. 1979) ("Section 659 . . . does not confer federal
jurisdiction. . . . And jurisdiction does not lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) since § 659 merely
waives the defense of sovereign immunity to state proceedings, while not creating a federal
cause of action."). Because § 659 does not create a federal cause of action, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Complaint.
Furthermore, the Circuit Court's garnishment order directed the SSA to pay Plaintiff a
percentage of Mr. Johnson's social security benefits "if Judgment debtor, Christopher Lee
Johnson[,] is entitled to receive" such benefits. ECF No. 3-1 at 15-16. The SSA cannot act on
the Circuit Court order imtil Mr. Johnson files for benefits from the SSA. As the R&R correctly
recognized, "[t]he Court is unaware of any law authorizing either the Court or the SSA to force
Mr. Johnson to file for such benefits." ECF No. 23 at 6. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction because the case is not yet ripe for review. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S.
296, 300 (1998) (recognizing that a claim is not ripe for review if it rests on future events that
may not occur as expected or at all).
For the reasons outlined above, this Court lacks subject matter jxuisdiction over
Plaintiffs Complaint, which must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).
Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff contends that the SSA's actions violate the
Fourteenth Amendment, the SSA is immune from suit for any alleged constitutional violation.
F.D.LC. V. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) ("Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the
Federal Government and its agencies from suit."). To the extent the Plaintiff objects to the
Magistrate Judge's denial of her Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Compel, see ECF No. 24,
such denial was proper because this Court lacks of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
case. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's analysis does not contain errors warranting reversal.
IV.
MOTION TO AMEND
On June 26, 2018, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend. ECF No. 27. Pursuant to Rule
15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its complaint once, "as a
matter of course," within 21 days after the service of a motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(b).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Plaintiffs Motion to Amend was not filed within 21 days after the
January 19, 2018 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7), and cannot be granted as a matter of course.
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]n all other cases, a
party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R, Civ. P. 15(a)(2). If
a proposed amendment would be futile, however, the court should deny the motion to amend.
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404,426-27 (4th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiffs proposed amendment would be fiitile. As explained in the R&R filed on April
2, 2018, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims because (1) sovereign
immunity shields the SSA form Plaintiffs 14th Amendment claims; (2) 42 U.S.C. §659 does not
create a federal cause of action; and (3) the case is not ripe for review as Mr. Johnson has not yet
claimed his social security benefits, against which Plaintiff has a claim for unpaid spousal
support. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Amend must be denied.
V.
CONCLUSION
Following this Court's de novo review of the R&R filed on April 2, 2018, and of the
objection filed thereto, and finding no errors, the Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES in fiill the
findings and recommendations set forth in the R&R. ECF No. 23. Accordingly, the SSA's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Furthermore, for the reasons stated herein. Plaintiffs
Motion to Amend (ECF No. 27) is DENIED.
The parties are ADVISED that an appeal from this Final Order may be commenced by
forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United States District Court, United
States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. This written notice must be
received by the Clerk within sixty days from the date of this Final Order.
The Clerk is REQUESTED to forward a copy of this Order to all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Arenda L. \^ght-Anen
United States District Judge
Norfoliy Virginia
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?