Opinion
Civ. No. 20-24 RB/GJF
07-13-2020
TODD LEVEILLE., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss" [ECF 18] ("Motion"). The Motion is fully briefed. See ECFs 21 (Response), 22 (Reply). For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED, and that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
In January 2020, Plaintiff filed a "Civil Rights Complaint" against Defendant. Compl. [ECF 1] at 1. This Complaint seeks to invoke this Court's jurisdiction "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Id. at 2. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's "constitutional rights, privileges or immunities [were] violated" when the Social Security Administration failed to (1) update Plaintiff's address and (2) process Plaintiff's request to disenroll from Medicare Part B insurance. Id. at 2-3. Defendant asks this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mot. [ECF 18] at 1-6.
See also § 1983 (establishing a right to sue state government employees, and others, acting under color of state law for civil rights violations) and § 1343(3) (establishing jurisdiction for such suits); Stanley v. Gallegos, 852 F.3d 1210, 1212 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming that § 1983 "authorizes suits against persons acting under color of state law for violations of rights granted by federal law" (emphasis added)).
See also id. at 4 n.1 (Defendant's counsel informing the Court on April 24, 2020, that "she ha[d] [recently] worked with Plaintiff and an agency operations program analyst to update Plaintiff's address information and terminate his enrollment in Medicare Part B" and that "[e]arlier [that] week, the agency sent Plaintiff's representative payee and Plaintiff—at the New Mexico address listed on his Complaint—notices confirming the disenrollment").
II. LAW
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (emphasis added); see also Walden v. Bartlett, 840 F.2d 771, 775 (10th Cir. 1988) (stating that a plaintiff must allege "facts sufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction"). Otherwise, the Court may dismiss a plaintiff's case without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cty. Justice Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1162 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2007) (also noting that reviews of such dismissals are conducted under "[the] basic abuse of discretion standard").
Although "[a] pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally," Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), such a litigant must nevertheless "follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court's jurisdiction over claims against the Social Security Administration is essentially limited to (1) complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 405, which requires plaintiffs to have first exhausted their administrative remedies so that a "final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which [the plaintiff] was a party" can be reviewed, or (2) complaints that "raise a colorable constitutional claim." Nelson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 927 F.2d 1109, 1111 (10th Cir. 1990).
See also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)-(h) (stating that "[n]o . . . decision of the [Commissioner] shall be reviewed by any . . . governmental agency except as herein provided" (emphasis added)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a) (stating that—after a final decision—a claimant may "request judicial review by filing an action in a Federal district court"); Case v. Milewski, 327 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir. 2003) (observing that "an action brought pursuant to § 1983 cannot lie against federal officers acting under color of federal law"); Marshall v. Shalala, 5 F.3d 453, 455 (10th Cir. 1993) (requiring social security plaintiffs to "state a colorable constitutional claim" if they have not first exhausted their administrative remedies).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's Complaint does not provide this court with a "statement of the grounds for [its] jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint neither states—nor "allege[s] sufficient facts to establish," Walden, 840 F.2d at 775—any of the following: (1) that Plaintiff is appealing the jurisdictionally required "final decision," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of the Commissioner, (2) that Defendant was acting "under color of state law," Stanley, 852 F.3d at 1212, by not updating Plaintiff's address or disenrolling him from insurance, or (3) that such oversights amount to a "colorable constitutional claim," Marshall, 5 F.3d at 455. See Compl. at 2-5. Consequently, the Court will recommend "[e]mploying Rule 41(b) to dismiss [this] case without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8." Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1162.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO RECOMMENDED.
/s/_________
THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Any request for an extension must be filed in writing no later than seven days from the date of this filing. A party must file any objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.