Davenport v. Bisignano

Summary

The court grants the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s constitutional claims arising from the denial or mishandling of several applications for disability benefits. It holds that sovereign immunity and the inapplicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to federal actors deprive the court of jurisdiction, and that the claims are also barred or unsupported because of res judicata and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. Claims for money damages against the United States, its agencies, and officers sued in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity absent an unequivocally expressed waiver. Plaintiff's constitutional damages claims against the Social Security Administration therefore fell outside the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action against federal actors because it applies to conduct under color of state law, not federal law.
3. A plaintiff may not maintain an implied Fifth Amendment due process damages action against Social Security officials based on the alleged wrongful denial of disability benefits where Congress has provided a comprehensive statutory review scheme.
4. The Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for constitutional tort claims.
5. Judicial review of a Social Security benefits decision is generally available only under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after the claimant receives a final decision from the Commissioner through the administrative-review process. Plaintiff's claims concerning her later applications were barred because she did not obtain ALJ decisions or seek Appeals Council review.
6. Plaintiff's claims concerning her first two disability applications were barred by res judicata because those claims had already been fully adjudicated and the prior denials had been affirmed on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's constitutional claims for damages against the Commissioner and the Social Security Administration.
2. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorizes Plaintiff's claims against federal actors.
3. Whether Plaintiff stated a cognizable constitutional damages claim under the Constitution or the Federal Tort Claims Act.
4. Whether Plaintiff's claims concerning previously adjudicated disability applications were barred by res judicata.
5. Whether Plaintiff's claims concerning later disability applications were barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
6. Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because the defects in the complaint could not be cured by further pleading.

Disposition

dismissed