Thomas v. Kijakazi

Background

Jamar Thomas applied for an original Social Security number at a Social Security Administration office in Minneapolis on August 9, 2022. He submitted several documents, including a photocopied delayed birth registration from Maine, other photocopied records, and a Minnesota driver’s license. The agency later told him that he had not provided acceptable proof of age and that photocopies were not acceptable. It gave him a checklist of documents and instructions for requesting review or submitting a new application.

After Thomas did not provide the requested documents by the stated deadline, the agency told him to apply again and later returned his application and documents. The returned materials stated that he had not provided acceptable proof of identity. The opinion notes that his driver’s license had expired by then. Thomas filed this lawsuit without a lawyer, seeking an order requiring the agency to issue him a Social Security number. He asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Jurisdiction under the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedure Act

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under the Social Security Act. The statute allows judicial review after a final decision by the Commissioner following the required administrative process. The court determined that the denial of a Social Security number was not a final determination and that Thomas had not appealed, requested a second review, or reapplied. The court said he was still free to pursue those options.

The court also rejected jurisdiction under the federal-question statute and the Administrative Procedure Act. It explained that the Administrative Procedure Act does not independently authorize federal-court review of every agency action and that the Social Security Act barred the federal-question route for these claims. Because Thomas had not followed the agency’s procedures, the agency had not completed a review that could result in final agency action. The court further concluded that the agency did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it treated Thomas’s documents as insufficient.

Mandamus request

The court treated Thomas’s challenge as also seeking mandamus, which is a court order requiring a federal officer or agency to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty. The court held that mandamus was unavailable because Thomas had not exhausted his administrative remedies. It also held that the agency had no clear duty to issue a Social Security number because Thomas had not submitted documents complying with the governing requirements for proof of age, identity, citizenship, and whether he had previously been assigned a number.

Due process claim

The court rejected Thomas’s claim that the agency permanently prevented him from applying for a Social Security number. It explained that agency procedures allowed an applicant to request review by a different officer or submit a new application, with no stated limit on the number of applications. The court concluded that Thomas had been given those options and had not used them. It also rejected his interpretation of agency employees’ communications, finding that the communications were efforts to help him obtain a Social Security number rather than efforts to permanently block him.

Order

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, denied Thomas’s motion opposing dismissal, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court ordered the agency to issue Thomas a Social Security number.