Alexander v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Kenneth Spencer Alexander, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Commissioner of Social Security over the alleged administration of his benefits under the Social Security Act. Alexander alleged that, at various times during the previous ten years, the Social Security Administration stopped paying or withheld his disability and/or retirement benefits because of alleged overpayments and/or ineligibility. He stated that his full retirement benefits were reinstated in about July 2023 while an appeal was pending.

Venue and final agency decision

The court directed Alexander to amend his complaint to address two deficiencies. First, he had not explained why the Southern District of New York was the proper federal district for the case. The court noted that judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) generally must be brought where the plaintiff resides or has a principal place of business, or, if neither is in a federal judicial district, in the District of Columbia. The complaint stated that Alexander resides in Jerusalem, Israel, but did not state that he has a principal place of business in the Southern District of New York. The court instructed him to explain the district’s connection to the case and stated that, if his principal place of business is not there, he should file in the District of Columbia.

Second, Alexander had not identified or attached a final agency decision for review. The court explained that a claimant ordinarily must complete four administrative steps before seeking judicial review: an initial determination, reconsideration, a decision by an Administrative Law Judge, and review by the Appeals Council. Alexander attached only a request for an Administrative Law Judge hearing dated August 1, 2023. Although he referred to several benefit-withholding decisions, he did not identify when the agency allegedly violated his rights or state whether he had completed the required administrative process. The court instructed him to complete specified sections of the attached form complaint and attach the Social Security Administration Appeals Council’s letter.

Preliminary injunction

Alexander also filed a motion for a “temporary injunction.” The court treated it as a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a request for temporary relief while a case is pending. The court denied that motion because, for the same reasons requiring an amended complaint, Alexander had not shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions about the merits.

Disposition

By October 20, 2023, Alexander was directed to file an amended complaint containing the required information. The amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims he wanted to maintain had to be included in it. The court directed that the filing be submitted to the district’s Pro Se Office, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and use the same docket number. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 5 and mail Alexander the order and its attachment. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for that appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Alexander’s benefits dispute.