Lewis v. Social Security Administration

Background

Regina Lewis, appearing without a lawyer, sued the Social Security Administration, Administrative Law Judge Gallagher, the Orange County Department of Social Services, the Orange County Commissioner, Darcie Miller, a licensed clinical social worker, and Independent Living’s chief executive officer, Doug Hovey. She alleged that the defendants were “robbing” her in violation of the Hobbs Act, a federal criminal statute.

Lewis participated in a supported housing program operated by Independent Living, Inc. A letter attached to her complaint stated that Independent Living would pay her landlord $997 per month until Lewis obtained her own benefits, after which Lewis would pay 30 percent of her income and Independent Living would pay the balance. Lewis alleged that she authorized $300 of a $412 monthly public-assistance grant to be paid directly to her landlord, but that the landlord did not receive the money and Independent Living instead received the $300.

Lewis also alleged that she received Supplemental Security Income and that the Orange County Department of Social Services sought to recover $8,213.95. She said she had not authorized the payment to Independent Living and had been threatened with removal from the rental-subsidy program if she refused to accept assistance from the department. She characterized the alleged transfers as robbery, money laundering, wire fraud, bank fraud, mail fraud, and other federal crimes.

Legal standards

Because Lewis was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to dismiss a case whenever it lacked authority to hear it. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, those complaints still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Social Security Administration may use part of a person’s initial, retroactive Supplemental Security Income payment to reimburse a state or local government for interim assistance paid while the person’s benefits application was pending. Applicants for state public assistance may authorize that reimbursement. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(g)(5), disputes about the Social Security Administration’s payment to the state, or the amount retained by the state or a local government, are not subject to federal judicial review. The court noted that state hearings, rather than federal hearings, may be available for disputes about the state’s repayment amount.

Based on that rule, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Lewis’s claims that the defendants took money from her initial Social Security payment by repaying the Department of Social Services for interim assistance. Subject-matter jurisdiction means the court’s legal authority to hear a type of dispute.

The court separately ruled that Lewis’s requests to prosecute the defendants under the Hobbs Act and other federal criminal statutes were frivolous. It relied on the principle that decisions about whether to bring criminal charges belong to prosecutors, not private individuals or courts acting at a private party’s request.

The court stated that it was not deciding Lewis’s claims on their merits and therefore did not need to address whether she was competent to proceed without a guardian or lawyer. Citing that concern and the rule governing claims by people who may be incompetent, the court dismissed the claims without prejudice.

Disposition

The court directed the clerk to mail Lewis a copy of the order and record service on the docket. It dismissed Lewis’s complaint without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying benefit-payment allegations on their merits.