Thomas v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | 11-CV-3698 (MKB) |
| Parties | EUGENE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Eugene Thomas filed the above-captioned action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), seeking information about the appointment of a guardian ad litem to receive Plaintiff's social security funds. Defendant and Plaintiff both moved for summary judgment. The Court heard argument on January 23, 2013. At oral argument, Plaintiff informed the Court that he also intended to bring a due process violation claim pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
According to Plaintiff, he first obtained social security benefits in 1986. (Pl. 1st Summ. J. 1.) At some point prior to the appointment of a guardian ad litem, Plaintiff was living in housing controlled by the New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA").2 (Id.) Plaintiff was notified on August 24, 1999 that the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York's Protective Services for Adults ("PSA") planned to ask the Social Security Administration ("SSA") to appoint the Commissioner of the Human Resource Administration to act as representative payee of his Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. (Pl. 01/24/2013 Letter Ex. 2.) The SSA notified Plaintiff on September 6, 1999 that a representative payee would be appointed. (Pl. 01/24/2013 Letter Ex. 1.) In the letter, Plaintiff was told that within 10 days the SSA would select a representative payee and he had 60 days to request an appeal of the decision. (Id.) The PSA thereafter served as Plaintiff's representative payee from September 1999 to September 2000. (Pl. 2d Summ. J. Ex. C.) "On September 25, 2000, the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens (NYFSC) became [Plaintiff's] payee, upon being selected to serve as his court-appointed legal guardian." (Id.) "In October 2010, legal guardianship of [Plaintiff] was transferred to his son, Christopher Reese[.]" (Id.)
"By letter dated April 2, 2010, [P]laintiff requested a copy of a court order dated prior to October 1, 1999, 'authorizing the seizure of Social Security Disability benefits."' (Def. 56. 1 ¶ 1.) It is Defendant's best understanding that Plaintiff was "referring to a New York State Supreme Court order issued prior to October 1, 1999, that resulted in [Defendant] selecting a representative payee for [P]laintiff's disability insurance benefits." (Def. Summ. J. 1.) "In a letter dated May 13, 2010, SSA acknowledged the FOIA request." (Def. 56. 1 ¶ 2.) On June 2, 2010, Defendant wrote to Plaintiff that the FOIA request was being referred to the Northeastern Program Service Center ("NEPSC"), "because it was believed that [P]laintiff's claims folder was at the NEPSC." (Id. at ¶ 3.) NEPSC conducted a search in June 2010 and was unable to find the order. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff commenced this action on August 1, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 5.) In November 2011, Defendant conducted another search for the order at the NEPSC but could not find the order. (Id. at ¶ 6.) In December 2011, Defendant conducted searches in the Social Security National Records Center and at Plaintiff's local servicing district office and could not find the order. (Id. at ¶ 7.) "By a letter dated December 14, 2011, [Defendant] informed [P]laintiff that it searched its records and was unable to locate the requested document." (Id. at ¶ 8.)
Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Redd v. N.Y. Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166, 174 (2d Cir. 2012). The role of the court is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial."Cioffi v. Averill Park Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., AAA F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). A genuine issue of fact exists when there is sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. The "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment; "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Id. The court's function is to decide "whether, after resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, a rational juror could find in favor of that party." Pinto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 221 F.3d 394, 398 (2d Cir. 2000).
Under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), federal district courts have jurisdiction to prevent an "agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant." Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 139 (1980) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction it must be shown that an agency has "(1) improperly (2) withheld (3) agency records." Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 478 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989)); Romano v. C.L.A., No. 11-CV-5944, 2013 WL 210224, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2013); The Shinnecock Indian Nation v. Kempthorne, 652 F. Supp. 2d 345, 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). A district court may force disclosure only when all three elements are met. Grand Cent. P'ship, 166 F.3d at 478 (citing Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. at 142). "When an agency has demonstrated that it has not 'withheld' requested records in violation of the standardsestablished by Congress, the federal courts have no authority to order the production of such records under the FOIA." Kissinger, 445 U.S. at 139.
The defending agency has the burden of showing that its search was adequate or that the document is exempt from production under FOIA. Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). The main source of proof in a FOIA summary judgment motion is affidavits. Long v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 692 F.3d 185, 190 (2d Cir. 2012).3 Factual discovery "relating to an agency's search and the exemptions it claims for withholding records generally is unnecessary if the agency's submissions are adequate on their face." Grand Cent. P'ship, 166 F.3d at 488 (alteration omitted) (citing Carney, 19 F.3d at 812). "[T]o establish the adequacy of a search, agency affidavits must be relatively detailed and nonconclusory, and submitted in good faith." Id. (alteration, citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is presumed that affidavits submitted by the agency were submitted in good faith. Id. After the agency has shown a good faith adequate search, the plaintiff must show that the agency acted in bad faith or show that any exemptions claimed by the agency are not appropriate in the case. Anderson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 326 F. App'x 591, 592-93 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Carney, 19 F.3d at 812).
"When a plaintiff questions the adequacy of the search an agency made in order to satisfy its FOIA request," the key question is whether the search "was reasonably calculated to discover the requested documents," and not whether every document in existence was found by the search. Grand Cent. P'ship, 166 F.3d at 489 (alteration and citation omitted); Fox News Network, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of The Treasury, 739 F. Supp. 2d 515, 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see alsoAdamowicz v. I.R.S., 402 F. App'x 648, 651 (2d Cir. 2010) (). Defendant engaged in several searches for the relevant document and describes the search in sufficient detail. (See Decl. Zimmerman.) In addition, at the Court's instruction, Defendant searched the Kings County Supreme Court records for any relevant documents and found that "[b]y Order and Judgment and Commission entered on September 28, 2000, the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens was appointed Guardian of the" property of Plaintiff. (See Def. 02/13/2013 Letter.) Defendant has gone above and beyond meeting its required burden.4 See Grand Cent. P'ship, 166 F.3d at 478. Plaintiff's FOIA claim is dismissed.
Plaintiff argues that the appointment of a representative payee prior to a court order violated his due process rights.5 Plaintiff received notice on September 6, 1999 that arepresentative payee would be appointed. (Pl. 01/24/2013 Letter Ex. 1.) He was also informed that within 10 days, the SSA would select a representative payee and that he had 60 days to request an appeal of the decision. (Id.) There is no indication from the record provided by Plaintiff that he ever appealed the SSA's determination through the SSA's administrative procedures. (See Def. 02/13/2013 Letter.)
The SSA may distribute a person's benefits "for [a beneficiary's] use and benefit to another individual or entity as the beneficiary's representative payee."6 Wash. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 376 (2003) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A plaintiff seeking to overturn the SSA's appointment may either seek review of a final determination by the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) or as a writ of mandamus. Keesing v. Apfel, 124 F. Supp. 2d 134, 135 (N.D.N.Y. 2000); Laurie Q. v. Callahan, 973 F. Supp. 925, 929 (N.D. Cal. 1997); see also Tutuianu v. Comm'r of...
To continue reading
Request your trial