Duarte v. Saul

Background

Elidia M. Duarte sued Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, and unidentified Social Security Administration employees. She alleged procedural and substantive errors in the handling of disputes about her Social Security survivor benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Her amended complaint asserted claims under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the federal mandamus statutes. She also sought injunctive and declaratory relief.

The court had previously dismissed Duarte’s original complaint but allowed her to amend it. After she filed an amended complaint, the Commissioner again moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Duarte’s attorneys later withdrew after the hearing because their representation had been limited in scope. The court granted Duarte’s request for judicial notice of thirteen exhibits, but said that ruling did not affect the dismissal motion.

Administrative exhaustion

The Social Security Act generally requires a claimant to complete the agency’s review process and obtain a final decision before seeking judicial review. That process includes an initial determination, reconsideration, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and review by the Appeals Council. The court held that Duarte had not alleged completion of that process for several earlier benefit determinations. As to the administrative law judge’s March 1, 2021 decision, Duarte had requested Appeals Council review, but the Appeals Council had not yet issued a decision. The court therefore held that this claim was not yet ready for judicial review.

The court considered whether to excuse the exhaustion requirement. It concluded that Duarte’s claims were not separate from her underlying benefits dispute because they principally challenged the processing and denial of her own benefits. The court found that Duarte had shown a sufficient possibility of irreparable harm because delays could affect her health and could not be fully remedied by later payments. But it found that exhaustion was not futile: the alleged errors involved her individual application and were appropriately addressed through administrative review. The court therefore dismissed the benefits-related claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

FOIA and Privacy Act claims

The court dismissed Duarte’s FOIA and Privacy Act claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It did not decide the Commissioner’s alternative argument that those claims were moot. The court noted that Duarte had not alleged that she appealed her records requests through the agency’s published procedures. It stated that, if she wished to pursue a records request under the Privacy Act, she should present it through the agency’s administrative channels, including an appeal to the Office of Public Disclosure.

Administrative Procedure Act and federal-question jurisdiction

The court dismissed Duarte’s APA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It held that the APA does not independently authorize federal-court review of Social Security Administration decisions. The court also rejected Duarte’s argument that the general federal-question statute supplied jurisdiction, concluding that the Social Security Act precluded that route for claims arising under the Social Security Act.

Mandamus claim

Mandamus is an extraordinary court order compelling a federal official or agency to perform a clearly required duty when no adequate alternative remedy exists. At the hearing, Duarte’s attorney clarified that the requested mandamus relief was limited to requiring prompt action on her Appeals Council appeal. The court dismissed the mandamus claim because the administrative law judge had issued a decision and Duarte had adequate remedies through the Appeals Council and, if necessary, later judicial review. The court also stated that the Social Security Administration was expected to follow its regulations concerning representation.

Injunctive and declaratory relief

The court dismissed Duarte’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. It held that an injunction requires subject-matter jurisdiction over an underlying claim, and that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently create jurisdiction. Because the court lacked jurisdiction over the substantive claims, it also lacked jurisdiction to award those forms of relief.

Disposition

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed without leave to amend, and judgment was entered for the Commissioner. The court stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to claims Duarte might properly assert under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after the Commissioner reaches a final decision, or under FOIA or the Privacy Act after she exhausts administrative remedies.