Blackwell v. Social Security

Background

Richard Preston Blackwell sued the Social Security Administration and its employee Jim Counts; Centerra and its employee Jeff Risollo; and the City of Saint Paul and its employees Anthony Holte and Mark Hermann. The dispute arose at the Social Security Administration’s St. Paul office on May 25, 2017. Blackwell alleged that Counts told him he could not enter without an appointment, that Counts instructed Risollo to arrest him when he entered, and that he was injured during a resulting scuffle. Blackwell also alleged that Holte handcuffed him, cut the straps of his backpack, and that Counts inaccurately reported that Blackwell had trespassed. Blackwell was charged with trespassing and fifth-degree assault, but those charges were later dropped. He further alleged that the City later took his cell phone, which contained a recording of the incident, from an impounded vehicle.

Blackwell originally filed the case in state court. His complaint asserted numerous Minnesota state-law claims, including business discrimination, failure to disclose the reason for a private arrest, municipal tort liability, and claims under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The federal defendants removed the case to federal court. The federal defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Centerra moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The City moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, summary judgment.

Claims Against the Federal Defendants

The court held that sovereign immunity barred Blackwell’s state-law claims against the Social Security Administration and Counts. Sovereign immunity generally prevents the United States, its agencies, and its officers from being sued unless Congress has clearly waived that protection. The court found no applicable waiver for Blackwell’s Minnesota causes of action and therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims.

The court also considered possible federal claims that appeared in the parties’ briefing, even though Blackwell’s complaint pleaded only state-law causes of action. It held that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not provide a viable basis for relief. The court explained that such claims must be brought against the United States rather than the Social Security Administration or Counts, and that Blackwell had not exhausted the required administrative claims process. The court further stated that the time for presenting such a claim had passed and that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for the intentional torts Blackwell alleged.

The court rejected the other potential federal theories as well. It held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not authorize claims against federal defendants, that the federal public-accommodations statute did not waive sovereign immunity and did not apply to the office as alleged, and that 28 U.S.C. § 5001(b) did not authorize a suit against the federal government. The court also concluded that sovereign immunity barred constitutional-tort claims and that, even if the complaint were read as asserting a personal-capacity claim against Counts, a claim under the limited constitutional remedy recognized in Bivens would not apply to the alleged discriminatory denial of access to Social Security facilities.

The court concluded that amended pleadings would not overcome the legal barriers, primarily sovereign immunity. It granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Blackwell’s claims against the Social Security Administration and Counts with prejudice.

Claims Against the Remaining Defendants

After dismissing the federal defendants, the court considered the claims against Centerra, Risollo, the City, Holte, and Hermann. The complaint asserted state-law claims, and the court found no basis for original federal jurisdiction over those defendants. It also found no indication of the diversity of citizenship required for diversity jurisdiction. In addition, the complaint sought more than $50,000, which the court stated was below the $75,000 amount required for diversity jurisdiction.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claims had been removed from the case. It dismissed the claims against Centerra, Risollo, the City, Holte, and Hermann without prejudice. The court stated that Blackwell could continue pursuing those claims in state court, where he had originally filed them, and that the dismissal preserved the possibility of refiling in federal court if jurisdiction later existed and the claims were not barred by future state-court litigation.

Order

The court ordered that:

- The Social Security Administration and Jim Counts’s motion to dismiss was granted. - Blackwell’s claims against the Social Security Administration and Counts were dismissed with prejudice. - Blackwell’s claims against Centerra, Jeff Risollo, the City of Saint Paul, Anthony Holte, and Mark Hermann were dismissed without prejudice. - Centerra and Risollo’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot. - The City, Holte, and Hermann’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment was denied as moot.

Judge John R. Tunheim directed that judgment be entered accordingly.