Guyton v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 17 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-00109-RLV |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | QUARTIZ ROCHELLE GUYTON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. |
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 15). The Plaintiff has filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 18) and the Defendant has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 19). Because the parties' briefs are filed and pending, this matter is now ripe for review.
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's Complaint and hereby GRANTS the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
The relevant factual and procedural posture of this case is relatively straightforward. Plaintiff, a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina, filed a claim for disability benefits1 under theSocial Security Act sometime prior to June 18, 2013.2 [Doc. No. 18-3] at p. 4. In June 2013, Plaintiff's claim was initially denied by the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, which was denied in September 2013. Id. In June 2014, Plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). Id.; accord [Doc. No. 18-8] at p. 1 (¶ 7). On September 5, 2014, ALJ Robert Egan denied Plaintiff's request for a hearing as untimely. [Doc. No. 18-3] at pp. 4-5. Specifically, the ALJ found that Plaintiff filed her request for a hearing several months after the denial of her request for reconsideration - far outside the limited sixty-five (65) day window in which a hearing request could be made, per applicable regulations. Id. (see citations therein). Because the request was so late, the ALJ dismissed it. [Doc. No. 18-3] at pp. 4-5.
In his dismissal, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not established "good cause" for extending the time in which she could request a hearing on the merits of her claim. [Doc. No. 18-3] at pp. 4-5; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.911; 416.1411; 404.933(c); 416.1433(c). Plaintiff had claimed that "neither [she] nor [her] representative . . . received notice of the denial of [Plaintiff's] request for reconsideration[,]" thus, she argued, she was unable to timely submit her hearing request. [Doc. No. 18-3] at pp. 4-5 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord [Doc. No. 18-2] at p. 4. However, the ALJ found this excuse did not merit a finding of "good cause" for a myriad of reasons. [Doc. No. 18-3] at p. 5. Because the Plaintiff's request was dismissed, the ALJ declined to exercise his discretion to hold a hearing on the merits of her claim. Id. Consequently, the September 2013 denial of reconsideration remained in effect. Id.
Following the dismissal, the Plaintiff administratively appealed the ALJ's decision to the SSA's Appeals Counsel in October 2014. [Doc. No. 18-8] at p. 1 (¶ 8); [Doc. No. 18-4]. In her administrative appeal, the Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Counsel reverse the ALJ's dismissal and remand the matter for a merits hearing on her claim. [Doc. No. 18-4] at pp. 1-2. On January 6, 2015, the Appeals Counsel declined to reverse the ALJ's dismissal. See [Doc. No. 18-8] at p. 2 (¶ 14); see also [Doc. No. 18-1]. The "Notice of Appeals Counsel Action" (the "Notice") advised Plaintiff that she had sixty (60) days in which to file a civil action in federal court in order to seek review of the ALJ's "decision" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). [Doc. No. 18-1] at pp. 2-3.
On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the purpose of seeking judicial review of the underlying administrative proceedings. [Doc. No. 1]; see also [Doc. No. 18-8] at p. 2 (¶ 15). On March 23, 2015, the Appeals Council issued a corrected notice, which, again, denied Plaintiff's requested review of the ALJ's dismissal. See [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 3 (¶ 3(c)). The "corrected" notice purportedly "set[] aside" the Appeals Counsel's January 6, 2015 Notice to the extent it erroneously stated that Plaintiff could file a civil action and seek judicial review of the administrative record.3 See [Doc. No. 16-1] at p. 3 (¶ 3(c)); see also [Doc. No. 19] at p. 3. On June 1, 2015, Defendant filed her Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. [Doc. No. 15].
Defendant moves this Court under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 15]; [Doc. No. 16]. Defendant claims that jurisdiction over this matter remains with the SSA because Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust her administrative remedies. Specifically, Defendant argues that there is no "final decision" of the Commissioner that is capable of supporting this lawsuit because Plaintiff failed to timely challenge the denial of her request for reconsideration.4 [Doc. No. 16] at pp. 6-8; [Doc. No. 19] at pp. 1-5.
Plaintiff counters by arguing that she did exhaust her administrative remedies and, therefore, subject matter jurisdiction is proper. She argues that she timely appealed the ALJ's September 2014 dismissal of her request for a hearing and, in January 2015, the Appeals Counsel denied her request for review. See [Doc. No. 18] at pp. 1-4. Plaintiff claims that, once the Appeals Counsel denied her request to review, she had "complete[d] the administrative appeals process" and was entitled to file this lawsuit. Id. at pp. 3-4. She also claims that the Appeals Counsel's January 2015 Notice conferred a right to seek judicial review. Id. at p. 3 ().
The Court has reviewed these arguments in conjunction with the Complaint for the purpose of determining whether subject matter jurisdiction is proper with respect to any claim asserted therein. Essentially, Plaintiff's Complaint requests two forms of relief that must be addressed in light of Defendant's Motion. First, Plaintiff requests that "the decision of the Defendant be reviewed and set aside and that the Plaintiff's claim for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income be allowed and that the Defendant be ordered to pay such benefits." [Doc. No. 1] at p. 2. The Court construes this claim as requesting a reversal, on the merits, of the denial of Plaintiff's benefits claim. Second, the Complaint requests alternative relief in the form of a remand for a hearing before the ALJ. The Court construes this claim as demanding that the Court vacate the ALJ's dismissal of her request for a hearing and remand the matter to the ALJ for a hearing. Both requests will be analyzed to determine whether they properly invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005); United States ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009). "They possess only the jurisdiction authorized them by the United States Constitution and by federal statute." Jadhav, 555 F.3d at 347 (citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)). Indeed, district courts "have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006); accord Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010). The Fourth Circuit has consistently held that "before a federal court can decide the merits of a claim,the claim must invoke the jurisdiction of the court." Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312, 316 (4th Cir. 2006). "A court is to presume, therefore, that a case lies outside its limited jurisdiction unless and until jurisdiction has been shown to be proper." United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 274 (4th Cir. 2008); Md. Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 407 F.3d 255, 260 (4th Cir. 2005).
Moreover, "[s]ubject matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived, and can be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any time prior to final judgment." In re Kirkland, 600 F.3d 310, 314 (4th Cir. 2010); see McCulloch v. Vélez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004) (); see also Snead v. Bd of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty, 815 F. Supp. 2d 889, 893-94 (D. Md. 2011). "[T]he court must dismiss the action" if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 506-07. This is because "jurisdiction goes to the very power of the court to act." Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008).
While the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the court has jurisdiction over the claim or controversy at issue, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion should only be granted if the "material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children's Guild, 742 F. Supp. 2d 772, 777 (D. Md. 2010); see also Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., a Div. of Standex Int'l Corp., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). In a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the pleadings should be regarded as "mere evidence on the issue," and courts may "consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Evans, 166 F.3d at 647.
The Social Security Act (the "Act") authorizes federal courts to review any "final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing" to which the claimant was a party...
To continue reading
Request your trial