Michael H. v. Kijakazi
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-00850
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Michael H. v. Kijakazi, Chief Judge Tunheim dismissed the benefits petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and denied Michael H.’s other motions.
Michael H., the self-represented petitioner seeking additional disability insurance benefits, and Kilolo Kijakazi, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, were affected. The petition was dismissed without prejudice, while the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss was granted and Michael H.’s other motions were denied as specified in the order.
What happened
In Michael H. v. Kijakazi, Michael H. asked the court to require the Social Security Administration to recalculate his disability insurance benefits and give him a hearing before an administrative law judge. He claimed he was owed more than $84,000, rather than the amount stated in the agency’s benefits notice.
The Commissioner argued that the court lacked authority to hear the case because Michael H. had not completed the agency’s appeal process. The court found that he had received only an initial decision and had not asked the agency to reconsider it. The court also found that a court order requiring a specific benefit amount was not available through this type of emergency court order.
The court dismissed the amended petition without prejudice and granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. Chief Judge Tunheim denied Michael H.’s other motions, including motions seeking court orders, sanctions, contempt findings, subpoenas, and appointment of a lawyer; the appointment motion was denied as moot.
The detailed version
- Michael H. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:21-cv-00850
- John Tunheim
- Mar. 23, 2022
Background
Michael H., representing himself, filed a petition asking the court to order the Commissioner of Social Security to recalculate his Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, pay the amount he believed was owed, and provide a hearing before an administrative law judge. The Social Security Administration had notified him that he was eligible for benefits, would receive $41,895.98 for benefits owed through January 2021, and would then receive $1,368 per month. Michael H. claimed that he was owed more than $84,000 based on a different disability date. He alleged that an agency employee told him there was nothing to appeal when he requested a reconsideration form.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the Social Security Act generally permits federal-court review only after a claimant receives a final agency decision following the required administrative process: an initial decision, reconsideration, a hearing before an administrative law judge, and review by the Appeals Council. The court found that Michael H. had received only the initial decision and had not requested reconsideration. It rejected his arguments that the employee’s statement created a final decision or that the exhaustion requirement should be excused. The court also found that he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for a waiver because his challenge directly concerned the amount of benefits, he could be compensated later if additional benefits were due, and the administrative process was not shown to be futile.
Mandamus jurisdiction and other motions
The court also considered jurisdiction under the federal Mandamus Act, which can sometimes allow a court to require a federal official to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty. It found that setting a precise benefit amount involved discretion and that Michael H. still had administrative remedies available. The court therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction under either the Social Security Act or the Mandamus Act. Chief Judge John R. Tunheim granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended petition without prejudice. The court denied the motions for writs of mandamus at Docket Nos. 12 and 37; denied the sanctions motion at Docket No. 22; denied the motion to appoint counsel at Docket No. 22 as moot; denied the contempt motions at Docket Nos. 35 and 36; denied the motion for a writ of mandamus and sanctions at Docket No. 46; and denied the three motions seeking subpoenas and compelled testimony or records at Docket Nos. 47, 48, and 56.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.