Smuda v. Marten
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:25-cv-01146
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Ricky A. S. v. Marten, Judge Wright denied two of three motions to amend a Social Security complaint and ordered the plaintiff to file a third amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the case within 21 days.
People who receive Social Security benefits and have had those benefits suspended or collected as overpayments in connection with civil commitment to a sex offender program. Also relevant to self-represented (pro se) federal court litigants who need to understand pleading amendment requirements, including signature and completeness rules.
What happened
In Ricky A. S. v. Marten (No. 25-cv-01146), a plaintiff identified as Ricky A. S. is seeking reinstatement and repayment of Social Security benefits that were suspended and deemed overpayments, which he says were wrongly tied to his civil commitment to sex offender programs in North Dakota and Minnesota. He argues he is civilly committed, not imprisoned, and that the Social Security Administration's suspension of his benefits was a mistake. The case also relates to a 2014 federal lawsuit in North Dakota that was remanded and later reopened.
The plaintiff filed three separate motions to amend his complaint. The court denied the first because it lacked a required signature and was not a complete, standalone document as required by court rules. The second was denied as moot because the third motion superseded it. The court granted the third motion in part, accepting a proposed Second Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in the case, while otherwise denying it.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright noted that since the plaintiff filed his latest amended complaint, significant developments have occurred: the North Dakota court has reopened the earlier case, and the Social Security Administration has offered to stipulate to a remand that could reverse the 2020 suspension of the plaintiff's benefits. Because of these developments, the court ordered the plaintiff to file, within 21 days, either a Third Amended Complaint reflecting these new circumstances or a voluntary dismissal of the case. The defendants' request for an extension of time to answer was denied in part and granted in part, extending their deadline to 21 days after any Third Amended Complaint is filed.
The detailed version
- Smuda v. Marten · No. 0:25-cv-01146
- Elizabeth Wright
- July 31, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Ricky A. S. — identified by first name and last initial, consistent with this court's practice in Social Security cases — brought this action against Lynn Marten and Frank Bisignano (sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of Social Security, substituted automatically for the prior commissioner under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)). The plaintiff seeks reinstatement and repayment of Social Security benefits that the Social Security Administration (SSA) suspended and collected as overpayments. The plaintiff alleges the suspensions were wrongfully triggered by his civil commitment to sex offender programs — first in North Dakota, then in Minnesota — on the theory that civil commitment is not the same as imprisonment and should not have resulted in a suspension of benefits.
The case is related to a 2014 action the plaintiff filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota (Ricky A. S. v. Astrue, No. 14-cv-00141), in which the North Dakota court had remanded the matter to the SSA for further administrative action in 2015. That docket sat inactive for nearly a decade. In January 2025, the plaintiff moved to reopen the North Dakota case; the North Dakota court denied that motion. The plaintiff then filed the instant action in Minnesota, in part seeking to reopen the North Dakota proceeding.
The Three Motions to Amend
After filing his original complaint on March 27, 2025, the plaintiff filed three motions to amend:
First Motion to Amend (Dkt. 4)
Filed the same day as the original complaint. Although the plaintiff had a right to amend once as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), the court denied this motion for two independent reasons: (1) it lacked a signature, which is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) regardless of whether a party is self-represented (proceeding without a lawyer); and (2) the proposed amendment was not "complete in itself" — it only revised portions of the original complaint rather than standing as a whole document — in violation of District of Minnesota Local Rule 15.1(a).
Second Motion to Amend (Dkt. 5, dated May 10, 2025)
Denied as moot because the Third Motion to Amend superseded it.
Third Motion to Amend (Dkt. 10, dated May 19, 2025)
Governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which directs courts to "freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." The court found no undue delay or bad faith, no unfair prejudice to defendants (who had not yet filed an answer or the administrative record), and declined to address futility at this early stage, noting that question is better resolved in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legal claim) if defendants choose to file one. The court granted the Third Motion to Amend insofar as it accepted the proposed Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 10-1) as the operative complaint, and otherwise denied it.
Subsequent Developments and the Court's Directive
After the Third Motion to Amend was filed, two significant events occurred:
1. North Dakota case reopened: The SSA moved on May 30, 2025 to reopen the North Dakota action, and the North Dakota court granted that motion on June 23, 2025. The court noted this development makes the instant case potentially moot to the extent it seeks to reopen the North Dakota proceeding.
2. Stipulation for remand offered: On July 25, 2025, defendants filed a Request for Extension of Time to Answer, disclosing that the SSA had extended a stipulation to the plaintiff for remand to the SSA so that an Administrative Law Judge (an SSA official who hears benefit disputes) would reverse the 2020 suspension of the plaintiff's benefits.
In light of these developments, the court ordered the plaintiff to file, within 21 days of the order, either (a) a Third Amended Complaint reflecting the current status of the North Dakota case and the SSA's proposed stipulation for remand, or (b) a voluntary dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The court reminded the plaintiff — who is proceeding without a lawyer — that any Third Amended Complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District of Minnesota Local Rules, and the court's orders, including the requirement that it be complete in itself.
Ruling on Defendants' Request for Extension
Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to Answer (Dkt. 13), which sought an extension until September 9, 2025, was denied in part and granted in part. The extension to September 9, 2025 was denied; instead, defendants' deadline to file an answer and/or Certified Administrative Record is extended to 21 days after any Third Amended Complaint is docketed.
Summary of Dispositions
- First Motion to Amend (Dkt. 4): Denied - Second Motion to Amend (Dkt. 5): Denied as moot - Third Motion to Amend (Dkt. 10): Granted in part and denied in part (Second Amended Complaint accepted as operative; motion otherwise denied) - Defendants' Request for Extension (Dkt. 13): Denied in part and granted in part - Plaintiff ordered to file a Third Amended Complaint or voluntary dismissal within 21 days
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.