United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
LINDA M. WOODY, Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL Security Administration, COMMISSIONER, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
L.
SCOTT COOGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
Introduction
Presently
before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state a
claim for which relief may be granted under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), filed by Defendant,
the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff,
Linda M. Woody, has responded in opposition to the motion.
(Doc. 11.) For the following reasons, the motion is due to be
granted and this action dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
II.
Background
Plaintiff
filed a pro se complaint alleging errors with
respect to unspecified Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) determinations (Doc. 1). She checked a
box indicating the claim type for which she sought review was
“Widow or Widower Claim” and did not check the
box to indicate Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”). (Id.) Materials Plaintiff
attached to her complaint include a January 2017 notice
explaining how portions of Plaintiff's 2017 Retirement,
Survivors, and Disability Insurance (“RSDI”)
payments would be withheld to collect an existing
overpayment; an undated, unsigned Request for Reconsideration
explaining that she was not married in 1995; a 2016 Social
Security Benefit Statement; and a March 2, 2016, notice that
Plaintiff had been overpaid $4, 398 in SSI benefits. It is
not clear whether Plaintiff seeks court review of an SSI
overpayment determination or the determination that her SSI
payments would be offset by RSDI benefits.
The
Commissioner has attached to its motion to dismiss the
declaration of Michael Sampson, Chief of the Court Case
Preparation and Review Branch of the Office of Appellate
Operations, SSA. (Doc. 9-1.) Mr. Sampson attests that he is
responsible for the processing of claims under Titles II and
XVI of the Social Security Act, whenever a civil action has
been filed in the State of Alabama, and that documents
relating to Plaintiff's claim have been examined under
his supervision. Those documents are attached to the
declaration. Mr. Sampson's declaration offers the
following information. On June 25, 1990, Plaintiff applied
for SSI pursuant to the Social Security Act. Subsequently, on
February 19, 1992, an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) found Plaintiff disabled and benefits
were awarded. (Doc. 9-1 at 3.) In February 1995, Plaintiff
was receiving Mother's Insurance Benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §
402(g), when SSA determined that Plaintiff had been overpaid.
(Id.) In September 1995, SSA denied Plaintiff's
request for a waiver of overpayment because Plaintiff was at
fault in causing the overpayment. (Id.)
On
January 12, 2016, SSA notified Plaintiff that her SSI
payments would decrease from $773 per month to $0 per month
due to her failure to apply for other benefits for which she
might be qualified. (Doc. 9-1 at 3 & Ex. 2.) Plaintiff
then applied for Widow's Insurance Benefits and requested
a redetermination of her SSI eligibility on January 29, 2016.
(Doc. 9-1 at 3 & Ex. 1, 3.) Shortly after, on February 5,
2016, SSA notified Plaintiff that her SSI payments would
return to $773 per month beginning in March 2016. (Doc. 9-1
at 3 & Ex. 4.) However, on February 11, 2016, SSA
notified Plaintiff that she was entitled Widow's
Insurance Benefits at $1, 004 per month beginning in March
2016. (Doc. 9-1 at 3 & Ex. 5.) Therefore, because
Plaintiff's Widow's Insurance Benefits increased her
income to $1, 004 per month, SSA notified Plaintiff on
February 12, 2016, that a Title XVI windfall offset would
reduce her SSI payments back to $0, and informed her of her
right to appeal this offset determination by submitting a
written Request for Reconsideration within 60 days. (Doc. 9-1
at 3 & Ex. 6.)
In
response, Plaintiff filed a Request for Reconsideration of
her Title XVI windfall offset on March 1, 2016. (Doc. 9-1 at
4 & Ex. 7.) On March 2, 2016, SSA notified Plaintiff that
she received $4, 390 more SSI than she was entitled to
because she was eligible for other Social Security benefits
when she began receiving SSI payments, and informed her of
her right to appeal the overpayment determination. (Doc. 9-1
at 4 & Ex. 8.)
On
April 11, 2016, SSA dismissed Plaintiff's March 1, 2016
Request for Reconsideration, apparently misconstruing it as a
reconsideration request from a prior overpayment
determination, rather than reconsideration of the offset
determination. (Doc. 9-1 at 4 & Ex. 9.) Mr. Sampson's
Court Case Preparation and Review Branch then contacted the
field office to request further action on Plaintiff's
Title XVI windfall offset Request for Reconsideration. (Doc.
9-1 at 4.)
On
January 20, 2017, SSA notified Plaintiff of her overpayment
repayment plan, which included a plan to withhold her current
$1, 004 per month RSDI payments to satisfy her $4, 390
overpayments of SSI, beginning in January 2017. (Doc. 9-1 at
4 & Ex. 10.) Information available to SSA does not show
that Plaintiff requested further administrative review of the
February 1995 overpayment determination, the February 11,
2016 award of Widow's Insurance Benefits, or the February
12, 2016 determination reducing Plaintiff's SSI payments.
(Doc. 9-1 at 4-5.) Further, there is no evidence of a
decision from an ALJ or the Appeals Council on any of those
issues. (Doc. 9-1 at 5.)
On
January 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant pro se
complaint against the “Social Security
Administration” in this Court, alleging errors with
respect to unspecified SSA determinations. (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiff served Defendant on June 27, 2018. On October 10,
2018, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 9). This
Court then issued an order to Plaintiff ordering her to show
cause in a written pleading as to why Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss should not be granted. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff filed
a response to the order stating merely that she was on SSI in
1991 and that she is unaware of any overpayment. (Doc. 11.)
III.
Standard of Review
A party
may challenge subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1)
by either a facial attack or a factual attack. See
McElmurray v. Consol. Gov't of Augusta-Richmond
Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007).
“Facial attacks on the complaint require the court
merely to look and see if the plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged a basis of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the
allegations in his complaint are taken as true . . . .”
Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir.
1990) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In a
factual attack, the court may consider facts outside the
pleading and is “free to weigh the evidence and satisfy
itself as to the existence of its power to hear the
case.” Id. (internal citation omitted). A
factual controversy therefore does not itself defeat a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). See id. “If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Lack of jurisdiction “may be
raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at
any stage in the litigation . . . .” Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).
“[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a
court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or
waived.” U.S. v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630
(2002).
IV.
...