Olson v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
| Decision Date | 22 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:16–cv–93 |
| Citation | 243 F.Supp.3d 1037 |
| Parties | Kevin L. OLSON, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, and Department of the Treasury, Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota |
Kevin L. Olson, Pro se.
Casey S. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Tara V. Iversen, U.S. Attorney's Office, Fargo, ND, for Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has received a Report and Recommendation from the Honorable Alice R. Senechal, United States Magistrate Judge.1 The Report and Recommendation recommends that the defendants' motion to substitute the United States as the sole defendant be granted and that Olson's complaint be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. Olson timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.2 The United States responded to the objections on March 21, 2017. The written submissions that have been authorized by the magistrate judge are now complete.
In his objections, Olson claims the magistrate judge improperly sequenced and commingled the he relies on in his documents; he generally objects to the magistrate judge's finding that the United States should be the sole defendant in this action; he asserts the magistrate judge failed to distinguish two "conditions of 'official capacities' ", namely ministerial duties by oath and discretionary duties of office; he believes the magistrate judge improperly applied the doctrine of sovereign immunity; he repeats previous arguments he made in the documents already on file with the court; and he requests that all motions by the defendants be denied and that he be granted his requested relief. The undersigned reviews objections to the Report and Recommendation de novo .
Olson has commenced this action challenging the constitutionality of religious exemptions contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA") and the Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA"). A careful review of Olson's submissions and the applicable case law establishes that Olson has failed to state a plausible claim that would entitle him to relief under the ACA or FICA. The court has considered the case law, Olson's objections, the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, and the entire record. Upon review, the court finds the magistrate judge's analysis and recommendations for disposition are appropriate. None of Olson's objections persuade the undersigned that the magistrate judge erred in her recommendations for disposition. The undersigned hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons stated therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff Kevin L. Olson (Olson) challenges the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), and the Self–Employment Contributions Act (SECA). He also challenges the religious exemptions of those Acts. Olson seeks several forms of relief: (1) an injunction against payment of the taxes and penalties imposed under those statutes, (2) a declaratory judgment that he qualifies for the religious exemptions under those statutes, (3) a declaratory judgment that those statutes are unconstitutional, and (4) a refund of taxes and penalties he has paid pursuant to those statutes.
As defendants, Olson named two federal entities and the heads of both entities. The defendants have moved to substitute the United States as the sole defendant, and to dismiss the complaint (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) alternatively, to dismiss any claims against certain individuals and governmental entities for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process.
Because Olson is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are to be liberally construed. See Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). Thus, in considering the pending motions, this court has considered all of the memoranda Olson has filed,1 despite memoranda which far exceed the 40–page limitation of Civil Local Rule 7.1(A)(1)2 and despite a surreply having been filed without pre-filing permission under Civil Local Rule 7.1(C). But, the court now advises Olson that any documents filed in the future must comply with all applicable local rules. Further, the court will impose a page limitation on any objection either side may file to this Report and Recommendation.
In part, this case involves issues regarding standing, sovereign immunity, and ripeness. For the reasons discussed below, the United States should be substituted as the sole defendant, and the district judge should conclude that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all claims except those for injunctive and declaratory relief under the ACA. But, the district judge should further conclude that Olson has not stated plausible claims which would entitle him to any relief under the ACA. The defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process, or alternatively for failure to state a claim against other governmental agencies and employees, should be granted. The district judge should not consider any claims Olson raised subsequent to the complaint and the supplement to the complaint, or alternatively, the district judge should conclude that the claims not pled in the complaint or the supplement to the complaint fail to meet plausibility requirements. In summary, the district judge should dismiss Olson's complaint in its entirety.
The FICA establishes a system under which employers are required to withhold Social Security and Medicare taxes from employees' earnings, and employers are required to transfer those withheld earnings to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The SECA requires self-employed persons to pay analogous Social Security and Medicare taxes directly to the IRS. Though Olson's complaint and briefs describe him as self-employed, those documents reference FICA rather than SECA. In their briefing, the defendants referenced the two statutes together, i.e., FICA/SECA, and this court has used the same method of reference.3
Both FICA and SECA exempt members of certain religious sects whose tenets include conscientious objections to receipt of insurance benefits:
Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he [or she] is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he [or she] is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act).
26 U.S.C. § 1402(g). The statute goes on to detail requirements of the religious exemption: evidence of membership in and adherence to the tenets or teachings of a religious sect, waiver of all benefits under the Social Security Act (SSA), a finding that the religious sect has tenets or teachings in opposition to acceptance of any insurance benefits, a finding that the religious sect has made reasonable provision for its dependent members for a substantial period of time, a finding that the religious sect has been in existence since December 31, 1950, and no benefits having become payable to the applicant before the applicant filed the SSA benefit waiver. Id.
Since 2014, the ACA has required that individuals either be covered under a qualified health insurance plan or make a "shared responsibility payment (SRP)" when filing an annual tax return. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A. But, the ACA includes a religious exemption from that requirement. The ACA's religious exemption refers back to the FICA/SECA religious exemption:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Iowa Bd. of Regents
...sovereign immunity. V S Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev. , 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000) ; Olson v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , 243 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1053 (D.N.D. 2017) ; see also Lee v. State , 815 N.W.2d 731, 743 (Iowa 2012) (concluding the Iowa plaintiff failed to fulfill her "b......
-
Hinds v. U.S. Gov't
...suits for a tax refund, that waiver is conditioned upon the taxpayer first exhausting administrative remedies. Olson v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1054 (D.N.D. 2017). As discussed more fully below, Plaintiff has not done so here. Plaintiff argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers j......
-
Bastian v. United States, 8:17CV309
...in their individual capacities); Schutterle v. United States, 74 F.3d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 1996) (same); see also Olson v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1061 (D.N.D.), aff'd, 709 F. App'x 398 (8th Cir. 2017) (federal court lacks jurisdiction over Bivens claims against United States,......
-
Sanders v. United States
...51 F.3d 70, 74-75 (2d Cir. 2008) (in the context of the Social Security Administration); Olson v. Social Security Administration, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1057 (D.N.D. 2017) (same); Cottrell v. Vilsack, 915 F. Supp. 2d 81, 91 (D.D.C. 2013) (in the context of the U.S. Department of Agriculture)......