Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2022

Martin v. Berryhill

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:19-cv-05430-GBD-OTW
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Social SecurityMotion to DismissCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Martin v. Berryhill: Judge Daniels dismissed Martin’s Social Security case because he had not obtained a final agency decision.

Who this affects

Kevin Martin, whose federal challenge to the reduction of his Supplemental Security Income was dismissed, and the Commissioner of Social Security.

What happened

In Martin v. Berryhill, pro se plaintiff Kevin Martin asked the court to review a decision lowering his Supplemental Security Income. The Commissioner of Social Security asked to dismiss the case because Martin had not completed the agency review process.

The court agreed that Martin had received only an initial determination and had not alleged a decision by an administrative law judge or review by the agency’s Appeals Council. The court therefore found that he had not obtained the final agency decision required before bringing this type of case in federal court.

Judge George B. Daniels adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint and granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. The court specified that the dismissal was under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than Rule 12(b)(1), and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Martin v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-05430-GBD-OTW
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Sept. 29, 2022

Background

Pro se plaintiff Kevin Martin brought this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to lower his Supplemental Security Income. The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Martin had not obtained a final agency decision.

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting the motion. Martin objected, repeating arguments from his opposition to the motion. Judge Daniels reviewed the portions of the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Failure to Obtain a Final Agency Decision

The court explained that the Social Security regulations generally require four steps for a final determination: an initial determination, a request for reconsideration, a decision by an administrative law judge after a hearing, and a request for review by the agency’s Appeals Council. The court found that Martin had received only an initial determination. He had not pleaded that an administrative law judge had issued a decision or that the Appeals Council had reviewed his claim.

The court also stated that no exception to the final-decision requirement applied. It concluded that Martin had not met the requirement for bringing this claim under the Social Security Act.

Rule Applied and Disposition

Although the magistrate judge’s recommendation relied on Rule 12(b)(1), Judge Daniels held that the dismissal should be under Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that failure to obtain a final agency decision is a waivable, non-jurisdictional requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), so it is addressed under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).

The court adopted the recommendation to the extent it dismissed the complaint, granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, specified that the complaint was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(1), terminated the motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.