Bauer v. Berryhill

Background

Frederick W. Bauer, representing himself, brought this action seeking judicial review of a Social Security Administration decision. Bauer had been incarcerated for nearly thirty years after a federal criminal conviction. After his release in 2016, he received Title II benefits and applied for additional benefits under Title XVI.

The administrative law judge denied Title XVI benefits on both a forward-looking and retroactive basis. The judge found that Title XVI payments were not payable during periods of incarceration, that Bauer’s conviction had not been overturned, and that his monthly income was too high for eligibility. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied Bauer’s request for review.

Bauer’s federal complaint sought retroactive Title II and Title XVI payments for his incarceration, reimbursement for travel to his administrative hearing, advanced legal costs, and unspecified damages. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Report and recommendation

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended denying Bauer’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissing the action. She concluded that Minnesota was not a proper venue because the Social Security judicial-review statute requires the action to be brought in the federal judicial district where the claimant resides. Bauer’s listed address was in Wisconsin, and the opinion also noted that his supervised-release conditions apparently required him to reside there.

The magistrate judge also concluded that Bauer was improperly using this civil action to challenge the validity of his criminal conviction. Under Heck v. Humphrey, a civil action cannot be used to call into question the lawfulness of a conviction that has not been overturned.

Objections and court’s analysis

Bauer objected to the recommendation, but the court found that he did not directly dispute the findings about venue or the improper challenge to his conviction. Instead, he disagreed with the venue requirements, disagreed with the rule against challenging a conviction through a civil action, and repeated allegations of fraud and wrongful conviction.

The court agreed that Minnesota was not the proper venue. It also agreed that transferring the case to an appropriate venue would not be in the interests of justice. The court noted that Titles II and XVI prohibit payment of public assistance to incarcerated individuals. It further stated that Bauer’s conviction had not been overturned despite his attempts to challenge it, and that Heck prevented him from using this civil action to further challenge the conviction’s lawfulness.

Disposition

The court overruled Bauer’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, denied Bauer’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.