United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
S. SHAH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Amaria Vondran seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Social
Security Administration to issue her a social security
number. She also alleges that the Social Security
Administration denied her application for a social security
number without a hearing, in violation of her procedural due
process rights. Defendant, Nancy Berryhill,  Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, moves to dismiss the
complaint. For the following reasons, defendant's motion
to dismiss is granted.
survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain factual
allegations that plausibly suggest a right to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Courts
must construe all factual allegations as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor in considering
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but courts need not accept legal
conclusions or conclusory allegations. Id. at
680-82. Rule 12(b)(6) further limits consideration to
“allegations set forth in the complaint itself,
documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that
are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and
information that is properly subject to judicial
notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432,
436 (7th Cir. 2013). I take judicial notice of relevant
regulations and procedures pertaining to the SSA and to the
SSN application process, even if such regulations and
procedures do not appear in the complaint. Fed.R.Evid.
201(b); see White v. Keely, 814 F.3d 883, 886 n.2
(7th Cir. 2016) (public records may be considered with a Rule
was born on May 25, 1992, “at home in Illinois”
and she has lived in the United States her entire life. 
¶¶ 4, 11.Vondran's parents were both born
in the United States and they have never left the country.
Id. ¶¶ 8-10. Each of her five siblings
have SSNs. Id. ¶ 12. When Vondran was
seventeen, she tried to obtain a social security number.
Id. ¶ 14. Approximately one year later, Social
Security Administration employees told Vondran's mother
that they believed she kidnapped Vondran and brought her over
the border from Mexico Id. ¶ 15.
“[Vondran]'s family was homeless and was scared to
return to the Social Security Administration office because
of fear that their children would be taken into custody of
the Illinois Department of Human Services.”
Id. ¶ 17. Thereafter, Vondran made several
other attempts to obtain an SSN. Id. ¶ 18. In
support of her most recent SSN application, Vondran provided
the following evidence of her U.S. Citizenship: (1) a U.S.
of State Birth Affidavit by her brother, Joshua Vondran,
id. ¶ 28; (2) a Certificate of Dedication,
id. ¶ 29; (3) a graduation announcement,
id. ¶ 30; (4) a list of kindergarten graduates,
id.; (5) a graduation certificate, id.; (6)
a State of Illinois Delayed Record of Birth, id.
¶ 32; and (7) affidavits from her father, brother,
sister, and two friends, id. ¶¶ 33-37. Yet
again, the SSA denied Vondran's application for an SSN.
Id. ¶ 38.
filed a request for reconsideration, but the SSA denied it.
Id. ¶¶ 39- 40. Next, Vondran requested a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, which the SSA did
not grant. Id. ¶¶ 41-43. Vondran still
does not have an SSN; because of this, she cannot drive, gain
employment, obtain medical insurance, or attend college.
Id. ¶¶ 44-47.
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is proper for claims
under the Social Security Act that are procedural in nature.
Burnett v. Bowen, 830 F.2d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 1987).
Vondran says that the SSA has a “no process”
policy for handling requests, like hers, to review a decision
to deny an application for an SSN, to have a hearing, and
other similar subsequent procedures. Her claim, therefore, is
procedural in nature and jurisdiction over her writ of
mandamus is proper.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) generally limits judicial review to
certain types of decisions by the Commissioner of Social
Security, courts may nevertheless review constitutional
challenges to agency action, so long as Congress has not
manifested an intent to foreclose jurisdiction by
“clear and convincing” evidence. Califano v.
Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109 (1977); see also Bhd. of
Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment,
Cent. Region v. Union Pac. R. Co., 522 F.3d 746, 751
(7th Cir. 2008) aff'd, 558 U.S. 67 (2009).
Federal courts have jurisdiction over Vondran's
Writ of Mandamus
is a drastic remedy that should only be invoked in
“extraordinary situations.” Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). A writ
of mandamus should issue only if Vondran can show (1) a clear
right to the relief sought, (2) defendant had a duty to do
the act in question, and ...