Grisso v. Apfel, 99-2725
| Decision Date | 12 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-2725,99-2725 |
| Citation | 219 F.3d 791 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) BILLY GRISSO, APPELLANT, v. KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ROBERT E. RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. TREASURY; JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Before McMILLIAN, Bowman, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
Billy Grisso appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, dismissing his mandamus action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For reversal, Grisso argues that the district court had jurisdiction to decide his constitutional claim and to rule on his mandamus petition. Four Missouri prisoners have moved for leave to file a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter as intervenors; we deny their motion. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
From 1983 to 1994, while Grisso was an Arkansas and Missouri prisoner, his disability insurance benefits were suspended. During that time, federal law provided that an individual confined in jail for a felony was not entitled to monthly benefits unless "actively and satisfactorily participating in a rehabilitation program which has been specifically approved for such individual by a court of law and, as determined by the [Social Security Commissioner], is expected to result in such individual being able to engage in substantial gainful activity upon release and within a reasonable time." 42 U.S.C. 402(x)(1) (1993) (amended 1994). In September 1997, Grisso filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus against the Commissioner, seeking reimbursement of his suspended benefits and asserting that 402(x)(1) was unconstitutional. Also in September 1997, Grisso filed an application with the Social Security Administration (SSA) for approval of industrial training programs as rehabilitation programs. In the application, Grisso informed the SSA that he had filed this federal action, and the SSA later informed him that it would not comment on his application and that the appropriate forum was the federal district court. Thus, in November 1997, Grisso moved for the district court to compel the SSA to rule on his application.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss Grisso's mandamus action, arguing his exclusive remedy for reimbursement of benefits was under 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and the district court could not review the claim until he exhausted administrative remedies. Grisso responded that he did not need to exhaust because his petition attacked the constitutionality of 402(x)(1), and he attested that he filed the mandamus petition to force the Commissioner to review his September 1997 application. The district court characterized Grisso's petition as seeking benefits and thus as seeking judicial review of an agency action, and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Grisso had failed to exhaust. The district court further concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to order the Commissioner to take action on Grisso's pending application, and that Grisso had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of 402(x)(1).
We review the district court's dismissal de novo. See Phillips v. Ford Motor Co., 83 F.3d 235, 239 (8th Cir. 1996). Grisso...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. Astrue
...the challenged deduction, and that he has not received any final determination from an ALJ or the Appeals Council. See, Grisso v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir.2000)("To the extent Grisso's mandamus petition sought reimbursement of benefits, we agree with the district court that it lack......
-
Richter v. U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin.
...depriving this court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim that the SSA wrongly discontinued her SSI benefits. Grisso v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir. 2000) ("To the extent [the plaintiff's] mandamus petition sought reimbursement of benefits, we agree with the district court that it l......
-
Bradin v. Astrue, 1:12CV61 SNLJ
...lacks jurisdiction to review petitioner's claim for benefits absent proper exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Grisso v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir. 2000). Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a petitioner seeking review of decision by the Commissioner must allege that: (1) he has receiv......
-
Treadway v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
...conclude that this Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against the SSA concerning his monthly benefits. See Grisso v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir. 2000) ("To the extent [the plaintiff's] mandamus petition sought reimbursement of benefits, we agree with the district court th......
-
Federal court issues
..., the district court dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the claimant’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Grisso v. Apfel , 219 F.3d 791, 793 (8 th Cir. 2000). In his petition, the claimant sought reimbursement of his suspended disability insurance benefits and asserted that ......
-
Nondisability issues
...substantial gainful activity upon release and within a reasonable time.’” §402.5 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATED II-486 Grisso v. Apfel , 219 F.3d 791, 792 (8 th Cir. 2000), quoting 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1) (1993) (amended 1994). In Grisso , the claimant filed a petition for a writ of mandamu......
-
Table of Cases
...1273 (Table) (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 1999)(unpub), § 1203.6 Grissom v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2005), 8th-05 Grisso v. Apfel , 219 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. July 25, 2000), 8th-00, §§ 402.4, 603.8 Groat v. Barnhart , 282 F. Supp.2d 965 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 22, 2003), § 1210.12 Groeper v. Su......
-
Case index
...Cir. Aug. 22, 2008), 9 th -08 § 402.4 Nonpayment of Benefits to Persons in Prisons: Vocational Rehabilitation Exception Grisso v. Apfel , 219 F.3d 791 (8 th Cir. July 25, 2000), 8 th -00 § 402.5 Anti-Assignment Clause Splude v. Apfel , 165 F.3d 85 (1 st Cir. Jan. 15, 1999), 1 st -99 Washing......