United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHNSON COLEMAN, United States District Judge
Sharon Parson, filed a pro se amended complaint
against the Social Security Administration, alleging
violations of her due process rights, First Amendment rights,
obstruction of justice, and discrimination. Defendant, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security ("the agency"),
moves to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the
reasons stated herein, this Court grants the motion.
difficult to discern from the convoluted text of the amended
complaint precisely what Ms. Parson is alleging. The
allegations in the amended complaint are rendered even less
clear by the inclusion of a lot of legalease and extensive
quotations from cases from various jurisdictions. Ms. Parson
seems to be alleging that her monthly Supplemental Security
Income ("SSI") benefits were reduced by $305.00
without a hearing or opportunity for administrative appeal.
She alleges that she initial sought reconsideration from the
Social Security Administration and requested a hearing with
an Administrative Law Judge on June 6, 2014. Ms. Parson also
alleges that she sought, what this Court will interpret
injunctive relief from the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee. Ms. Parson further asserts
that the Chicago District Office of the Social Security
Administration also denied her request for reinstatement of
the additional benefit amount.
defendant agency seeks dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing
that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Parson's claim. The agency also argues that this Court
should dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The standard applied to each motion is similar.
Freiburger v. Emery Air Charter, Inc., 795 F.Supp.
253, 256 (N.D.111.1992). To survive a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must
contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face, Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 62, 678 (2009), raising the right to
relief above a speculative level, BellAtl. Corp. v.
Twomblj, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Under Rule 8, a
plaintiff only needs to "give enough details about the
subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds
together." United States ex rel. Vresser v. Acacia
Mental Health Clinic, ULC, 836 F.3d 770, 776 (7th Cir.
2016) (quoting Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d
400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010)). When reviewing a motion to
dismiss, the court must accept all well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiffs favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007); Pisciota v. Old Nat. Bancorp, 499 F.3d
629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007).
agency argues that this Court must dismiss the amended
complaint both for failure to state a claim and for lack of
jurisdiction. Judicial review of agency decisions regarding
social security benefits is only available for a final
decision from the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Here, Ms. Parson does not identify a final agency decision.
Moreover, it appears she is seeking judicial review of the
denial of a state (Illinois) supplement to her SSI benefits.
Since any decision to reduce or suspend or terminate state
supplementary payments, even if federally administered, are
determined by the state, the agency is without authority to
reconsider that decision. Program Operations Manual System
("POMS") SI 04020.030B,
There is also therefore no final agency determination for
this Court to review pursuant to section 405(g). Accordingly,
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Court must also dismiss the amended complaint for failure to
state a claim. The allegations in the complaint are
insufficient to put the agency on notice of the claim against
it. As noted above, the Court finds the allegations in the
complaint convoluted and mired in legal rhetoric that serves
only to confuse issues. Ms. Parson might fare better if she
plainly and succinctly states what actions she claims this
agency took. This Court understands from the complaint that
her SSI benefits have been reduced, but that is not
sufficient information for this Court to allow Ms. Parson to
proceed on this complaint.
on the foregoing discussion, this Court grants the
agency's motion to dismiss . The Court will allow Ms.
Parson to file a motion for leave to amend her complaint
plainly stating factual support for this Court's
jurisdiction; i.e., a final decision by the Social
Security Commissioner that is reviewable by this Court. Ms.
Parson must also include a copy of her proposed amended
complaint with her motion for leave to amend. Any motion to
amend the complaint must be filed within 45 days of the entry
of this Order.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d), Nancy A.
Berryhill is substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin as Acting