Hines v. Irvington Counseling Center, Civil Action No. 95-1342 (MTB).

• Decision Date: 23 January 1996
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 95-1342 (MTB).
• Citation: 933 F. Supp. 382
• Parties: Shawn HINES, Plaintiff, v. The IRVINGTON COUNSELING CENTER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

933 F. Supp. 382

Shawn HINES, Plaintiff, v. The IRVINGTON COUNSELING CENTER, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 95-1342 (MTB).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

January 23, 1996.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Shawn Hines, Irvington, N.J., pro se.

Kathleen Hart, Fitzpatrick, Reilly, Supple & Gaul, New Providence, NJ, for Irvington Counseling Center, Dr. Chiernan and Norma Lafferty.

Peter G. O'Malley, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorney's Office, Newark, NJ, for The Irvington Social Security Office.

ORDER

BARRY, District Judge.

This matter having come before the court upon the timely filing of an objection by plaintiff Shawn Hines, to the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.M.J., regarding defendants'¹ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and the court having considered the submissions of the parties without oral argument; and

it appearing that plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 for the recovery of monetary damages allegedly suffered by him as a result defendants' allegedly unconstitutional conduct and denial of social security benefits; and

it appearing that on October 30, 1995, Magistrate Judge Chesler recommended that this court grant defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on account of the federal defendants' sovereign immunity; and

it appearing that plaintiff's objection letter of November 3, 1995 does not state any objections with regard to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this court dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on account of the federal defendants' sovereign immunity; and

it appearing that those factual findings to which plaintiff did object are immaterial to the relevant jurisdictional determination²; and it appearing that Magistrate Judge Chesler further recommended that, even if plaintiff amended his complaint to include a constitutional tort claim (a "Bivens" claim) against the defendants Reilly and Bertoldo in their individual capacities, such a claim likewise should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

it appearing that, because plaintiff timely objected to this portion of the R & R, this court now must exercise de novo review over the issue, see Menna v. Johns-Manville Corp., 585 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.N.J.1984), aff'd mem. 772 F.2d 895 (3d Cir.1985); and

it being the opinion of the court that claims of sovereign immunity would not bar a constitutional tort action brought against defendants Reilly and Bertoldo in their individual capacities, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); and

it being the opinion of the court that this case is controlled by Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 108 S.Ct. 2460, 101 L.Ed.2d 370 (1988) in which the United States Supreme Court, on facts very similar to the case at bar, held that "when the design of a Government program suggests that Congress has provided what it considers adequate remedial mechanisms for constitutional violations that may occur in the course of its administration, we have not created additional Bivens remedies," id. at 423, 108 S.Ct. at 2467-68 (refusing to recognize constitutional tort action under the Social Security Act ("the Act") against SSA officials where plaintiff claimed that the officials' unconstitutional conduct resulted in loss of benefits, emotional distress, and various other sources of consequential damages); and

it being the opinion of the court that, because "the Act, however, makes no provision for remedies in money damages against officials responsible for unconstitutional conduct that leads to the wrongful denial of benefits," id. at 424, 108 S.Ct. at 2468, this court must honor the remedial scheme fashioned by Congress and may not supplement that scheme with additional Bivens remedies,³ id. 426-27, 108 S.Ct. at 2469-70; and

it being the opinion of the court that Magistrate Judge Chesler's conclusion that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint and would continue to lack jurisdiction if plaintiff were to amend his complaint to include claims against defendants Reilly and Bertoldo in their individual capacities was correct and should be adopted by this court;

IT IS on this 23rd day of January, 1995,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Chesler be and hereby is adopted by this court; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Filed Oct. 30, 1995

CHESLER, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. Introduction

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of the Federal Defendants¹ to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment. This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, U.S.D.J. No oral argument was heard, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 78. For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the motion be granted.

II. Background

The facts in this case are as follows. Plaintiff Shawn Hines was apparently hospitalized for psychiatric problems in February, 1994, following an incident with the Dean of the law school he had attended for several years. (Report of Dr. Edward R. Tabbanor, New Jersey Dept. of Labor, Div. of Disability Determinations, of Oct. 18, 1994 at 1 hereinafter "Tabbanor Rept.".) This incident led to his expulsion from law school. (Id. at 2.) Mr. Hines' mother, attorney Sharon Hines Wade-Spearman, requested at that time that social security benefits be paid on behalf of her son and that she be named his representative payee to receive the payments. (Application for Supplemental Security Income of Feb. 24, 1994, attached to Declaration of Kenneth Kuiken as exhibit 1.) These benefits were denied, partly due to the fact that Mr. Hines refused to be examined by a Social Security physician. (Declaration of Kenneth Kuiken, Assistant District Manager, Irvington Social Security Administration office at ¶ 6 hereinafter "Kuiken Decl.".)

On September 8, 1994, Plaintiff Hines was mugged.² On September 12, 1994, Ms. Wade-Spearman filed a request that the Social Security Administration hereinafter "SSA" reconsider their former denial of payments to her son, Plaintiff Hines. (Request for Reconsideration of Sept. 12, 1994, attached to Kuiken Decl. as exhibit 2.) The reconsideration was granted, and Mr. Hines was examined for the SSA by Dr. Tabbanor on October 18, 1994. Dr. Tabbanor determined that Plaintiff Hines was "competent to manage his own benefit payments." (Tabbanor Rept. at 4.) A non-examining doctor reviewed Dr. Tabbanor's report and determined that Mr. Hines was disabled for the purpose of receiving benefits and "was capable of handling his own benefits." (Kuiken Decl. at ¶ 8.) The date of this determination is unclear.

Ms. Wade-Spearman, however, was concerned about her son's ability to manage his finances and discussed her concerns with defendant Vivianne Reilly, a Claims Representative assigned to the SSA Irvington District Office. On January 6, 1995, Ms. Wade-Spearman again requested that she be named her son's representative payee. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Benefit payments had not yet begun. (Pl's Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Def. SSA's Mot. for Summ.J. at 2 ("I began receiving social security payments in February of 1995.") hereinafter Pl's Mem..)

Mr. Hines became aware of his mother's request that she be named his representative payee, and on January 9, 1991, informed Defendant Carmine Bertoldo, another Claims Representative assigned to the SSA Irvington District Office, of his objections. (Kuiken Decl. at ¶ 10.) Defendant Bertoldo therefore prepared a Physician's/Medical Officer's Statement of Patient's Capability to Manage Benefits form and, despite Plaintiff Hines' request that he be permitted to hand-carry the form to his doctor, Defendant Bertoldo mailed it to Defendant Irvington Counseling Center on January 10, 1995. (Id. at ¶ 12.) The form was completed by Dr. B. Chernin, a psychiatrist at the Irvington Counseling Center, on January 31, 1995. Dr. Chernin indicated that "client is manifesting Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia symptomology and without medication is unable to make appropriate decisions and judgments about use of money." (Physician's/Medical Officer's Statement of Patient's Capability to Manage Benefits form, January 31, 1995, at 2, attached to Kuiken Decl. as exhibit 10 hereinafter "Capability Form".) Plaintiff Hines contends that Dr. Chernin "had seen the plaintiff on one or possibly two occasions prior to being asked by the SSA to determine whether I should be able to receive my benefits directly." (Compl. at ¶ 8.)

On the basis of Dr. Chernin's report, Ms. Wade-Spearman was named as Plaintiff Hines' representative payee. Mr. Hines signed a form stating

I understand and agree with the following ... SSA has selected Sharon Spearman to be my representative payee.... I understand that I have the right to appeal SSA's decision. I can appeal the choice of who will be the representative payee. . . . I understand that I must file an appeal within 60 days. . . . I have to ask for the appeal in writing. I will contact an SSA office if I wish to appeal.

(SSA Form 4164(9-94), dated 1-31-95, attached to Kuiken Decl. as exhibit 13.)

Social Security payments began to Mr. Hines in February, 1995. Mr. Hines alleges that his mother refused to disburse money to him when he needed it, that he had insufficient funds to eat and, as a result, he lost his apartment, his bed, and his refrigerator. (Pl's Mem. at 2.) On February 21, 1995, Mr. Hines went to the SSA and requested that he be named his own payee. (Kuiken Decl. at ¶ 14.) A second "capability form" was forwarded to...