Ryan v. Brady, Civ. A. No. 91-0608.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 91-0608. |
| Citation | 776 F. Supp. 1 |
| Parties | James RYAN, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas BRADY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Marina Utgoff Braswell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for defendants.
James Ryan, pro se.
Heinz Wall, pro se.
The plaintiff, James Ryan, is a federal prisoner currently in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons in Fort Worth, Texas. Due to his incarceration on a felony conviction, any Social Security benefits to which he is entitled were suspended for the duration of his incarceration. The plaintiff seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all incarcerated felons who are entitled to receive benefits under the Social Security Act but who have had those benefits suspended due to their incarceration.
Upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff's Opposition, the Defendants' Reply, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, it is
ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
The Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims. The substance of the plaintiff's action is his request for Social Security benefit payments, which were suspended under 42 U.S.C. § 402(x), and therefore, his claim arises under the Social Security Act. However, the plaintiff has failed to meet the statute's requirements that: 1) he has received a final decision of the Secretary after a hearing, 2) he brought suit within 60 days of the mailing of the final decision, and 3) he brought suit in the district court for the district in which he resides or has his principal place of business. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The plaintiff has not alleged that he has received a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff only alleges that his benefits were suspended by the Social Security Administration in December of 1989 with the explanation that benefits are withheld while an eligible recipient is incarcerated in the United States on a felony conviction under 42 U.S.C. § 402(x). The plaintiff does not allege that he requested reconsideration of this notice or proceeded to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge or requested Appeals Council review of a decision, all of which are required to obtain a final decision of the Secretary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900-982.
In addition, the plaintiff has not filed his suit in the district court for the judicial district in which he resides or has his principal place of business. The plaintiff, who is now incarcerated in Allenwood, Pennsylvania, neither resides within this jurisdiction nor has his principal place of business here. The plaintiff argues that the Court should ignore these venue requirements because the plaintiff has been moved between several prisons in the last eighteen months. However, the Court notes that once the action has been filed in the appropriate court, the case may stay in that court for venue purposes even if the plaintiff is subsequently transferred to a new prison. The plaintiff has never been incarcerated within this jurisdiction, and, therefore, the plaintiff does not meet the requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff because he has not met the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), and the case must be dismissed. If the Court were permitted to review the plaintiff's challenge to 42 U.S.C. § 402(x), which suspends his Social Security benefits, the plaintiff would not prevail. The statute's constitutionality has been upheld by every circuit court that has considered the issue, including the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See Yost v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 90-5338, slip op at 1-2 946 F.2d 1568 (table) ; Wiley v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 1120 (D.C.Cir.1987). Therefore, the plaintiff could not prevail in his attempt to have the statute declared unconstitutional.
The plaintiff has also filed an Addendum to Complaint, in which he seeks to add claims against the defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization statutes ("RICO"). The Court agrees with the defendants that the amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Russo
...this case to another district. Dismissal is appropriate where this venue requirement has not been satisfied. See, e.g., Ryanv. Brady, 776 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1991), aff'd on other grounds mem., 978 F.2d 744 (D.C. Cir. 1992).1III. RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended......
-
Ryan v. Bentsen
...Ryan's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. See Ryan v. Brady, 776 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C.1991). The court found that Ryan's claim arose under the Act and that he had not received a "final decision" of the Secretary (Secretary) ......
-
Bradin v. Astrue, 1:12CV61 SNLJ
...correspondence received by petitioner from the Social Security Administration.1 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(x), 405(g); see also, Ryan v. Brady, 776 F.Supp. 1, 2-3 (D. D.C. 1991). Because petitioner's mandamus seeks reimbursement of disability insurance benefits, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review......
-
Ryan v. Brady
...of the district court's order, filed June 27, 1991, granting appellees' motion to dismiss appellant's complaint. See Ryan v. Brady, 776 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C.1991). The merits of the parties' positions are not so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819......
-
PLATFORM IMMUNITY REDEFINED.
...See infra Part EI.B-C. (53.) 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). (54.) No. 031063/94. 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 21. 1995). (55.) 776 F. Supp. at 1 10-41. The CompuServe case involved a message board called Kumorville on which allegedly defamatory content was posted about a competing g......