Kleynzinger v. Social Security Administration
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-01583
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kleynzinger v. Social Security Administration, Judge Tse screened the complaint, found it legally insufficient, and allowed amendment before recommending dismissal.
Leopold Kleynzinger’s claims against the Social Security Administration were not allowed to proceed in their current form. He was given an opportunity to amend, while the agency was not served with the complaint under this order.
What happened
Leopold Kleynzinger sued the Social Security Administration over what he called distortion of his last name and address. He appeared to challenge the agency’s handling of his residency information and two identification cards issued in 1990 and 2007.
The court said the allegations were largely unclear and did not state a legally valid claim. It also explained that federal agencies generally cannot be sued unless the United States has clearly waived its legal immunity, and Kleynzinger had not identified such a waiver.
The order did not dismiss the case. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse gave Kleynzinger until November 14, 2022, to file an amended complaint identifying a valid claim and an express waiver of immunity; otherwise, the court said it would recommend dismissal. The court vacated deadlines and directed the clerk not to issue a summons or serve the complaint.
The detailed version
- Kleynzinger v. Social Security Administration · No. 4:22-cv-01583
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 14, 2022
Background
Leopold Kleynzinger sued the Social Security Administration, asserting two claims labeled “misrepresentation – distortion of my last name” and “misrepresentation – distortion of my address.” The court understood the allegations to concern the agency’s refusal to correct his “official residency (address)” to his “actual residency” and its alleged distortion of his last name on two identification cards issued in 1990 and 2007. Kleynzinger characterized the conduct as abuse and a violation of human rights and sought to “restore justice.”
The court had already granted Kleynzinger’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the allegations were largely incomprehensible and fell far short of stating a cognizable claim for relief, meaning a claim the court could legally consider and remedy.
The court also identified a jurisdictional problem. Sovereign immunity generally protects the United States and its agencies from suit unless the government has expressly waived that immunity. Any waiver must be stated unequivocally and is interpreted narrowly in favor of the government. Because the Social Security Administration was the only defendant, Kleynzinger had to identify a specific statutory authorization allowing the suit. The court found that he had not done so. Without an express waiver authorizing the action, the claims could not proceed and would have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Order and effect
The court allowed Kleynzinger to file an amended complaint by November 14, 2022. The amended complaint would need to state a viable claim for relief and identify an express waiver of sovereign immunity. The court said that if Kleynzinger did not amend, or if the amended complaint still failed to satisfy those requirements, the undersigned would recommend that a district judge dismiss the case. This screening order itself did not dismiss the case. It vacated all deadlines and instructed the clerk not to issue a summons or serve the complaint.
The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.