Joey I. Rodriguez v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOEY I. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 25-313 MLG/KK SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION1 Before the Court is Defendant Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) (“Motion”), filed April 1, 2025. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, I recommend that the Court GRANT the Motion and DISMISS Plaintiff Joey Rodriguez’s Complaint without prejudice.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History On February 24, 2025, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Review of Administrative Decision (“Complaint”) in the State of New Mexico, County of Rio Arriba, First Judicial District Court, requesting the state court to review his social security case and determine that he is disabled. (Doc. 1–2 at 2). A letter attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which is purportedly from one of his doctors, details that Plaintiff suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), tobacco use, and was involved in a motor vehicle accident “that led to a right below-the-knee amputation” in one of his lower extremities. (Id. at 3).

According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant SSA denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits on October 1, 2024. (Id. at 2, 7, 10). Generally speaking, a party may seek judicial review of the final decision of the SSA via a civil action “commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Documents attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint make clear that an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied his claim for benefits, though it is unclear when the ALJ’s decision was issued. (Doc. 1-2 at 12). Plaintiff subsequently sought review of the ALJ’s unfavorable decision with the SSA’s Appeals Council. (Id.). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on October 1, 2024, meaning this denial became the final decision of the SSA. See Naud v. Astrue, 870 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1185 (D.

Colo. 2012). In such situations, the sixty-day period to file a complaint for judicial review begins to run when a claimant receives notice of the Appeals Council’s decision, and the SSA’s regulations presume that a claimant receives notice of the Appeal’s Council’s decision within five days of its mailing. See Gossett v. Barnhart, F.App’x 24, 26 (10th Cir. 2005). In this case, the record is unclear when Plaintiff received notice of the Appeals Council decision declining to review the ALJ’s unfavorable decision. However, in a letter dated December 19, 2024, the Appeals Council stated it would give Plaintiff an additional thirty-days from the date of receipt of the letter to file a complaint for judicial review. (Doc. 1-2 at 12). The letter also stated that it would presume Plaintiff received it “5 days after the date on it.” (Id.). Plaintiff has made no showing, nor attempted to show, whether he did not receive the December 19, 2024 letter within five days. Therefore, it is questionable whether Plaintiff’s Complaint filed in state court was timely.2

On March 17, 2025, Defendant SSA removed Plaintiff’s case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a).3 (Doc. 1). In the Notice of Removal, Defendant SSA asserted that the “action is properly subject to removal because the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies and there has been no waiver of immunity against [the] United States or its agency, SSA, in state court.” (Id. at 2).

Subsequently, on April 1, 2025, Defendant SSA filed the Motion presently before me, arguing that dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 4 at 2). According to Defendant SSA, “[t]his Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the SSA pursuant to the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, which was implicated by Plaintiff filing his claims against the SSA in state court.” (Id. at 3). As Defendant SSA explains, federal law requires that actions against

00699, 2024 WL 3276423 (D. Utah July 2, 2024). The statute of limitations may be tolled “if the petitioner diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.” Thomas v. Astrue, No. 11-4088-SAC, 2012 WL 555088, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2012).

Therefore, Defendant SSA contends that because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims against the SSA seeking judicial review of the denial of benefits, “the state court never had jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the SSA.” (Id. at 4). Consequently, Defendant SSA asserts that because the state court never had jurisdiction over the case, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, “this Court has no jurisdiction upon removal.” (Id. at 4). Thus, Defendant SSA argues that “Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id.).

Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant SSA’s motion. As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to file a response, Defendant SSA filed a Notice of Completion of Briefing on May 6, 2025. (Doc. 11).4 Therefore, the Motion is ready to be ruled on. For the reasons explained herein, I recommend that the Court GRANT the Motion and DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.

II. Applicable Legal Principles A Court may dismiss a complaint for “lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(1). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is not a judgment on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.

Instead, it is a determination that the court lacks authority to adjudicate the matter.” Creek Red Nation, LLC v. Jeffco Midget Football Ass’n, Inc., 175 F.Supp.3d 1290, 1293 (D. Colo. 2016).

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). “Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, [courts] presume no jurisdiction exists absent a showing of proof by the party asserting federal jurisdiction.” Mineral Res. Int’l v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Hum.

Servs., 53 F.3d 305, 307 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[a] court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.” Penteco Corp. Ltd. P’ship—1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991) (alteration in original) (emphasis in original) (quoting Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974)).

“Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ‘generally take one of two forms: (1) a facial attack on the sufficiency of the complaint’s allegations as to subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) a challenge to the actual facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based.’” City of Albuquerque v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 379 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th Cir. 2002)). Where, as here, a party’s motion is rooted in a facial attack on subject-matter jurisdiction of allegations contained in the complaint, the court is to presume that all of the allegations contained in the complaint are true. Id. Under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction “federal courts lack jurisdiction if the state court lacked jurisdiction before removal.” High Lonesome Ranch, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Cnty. of Garfield, 61 F.4th 1225, 1239 (10th Cir. 2023). This doctrine recognizes that “removal jurisdiction is purely derivative in nature.” Goodrich v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 701 F.2d 129, 130 (10th Cir. 1983). As the Supreme Court said over a century ago, “[i]f the state court lacks jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties, the federal court acquires none, although it might in a like suit originally brought there have had jurisdiction.” Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 258 U.S. 377, 382 (1922).5 However, due to criticism of the doctrine, “Congress in 1986 abolished the concept of derivative jurisdiction for cases removed under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441.”

High Lonesome Ranch, 61 F.4th at 1239. Despite the criticism of the doctrine, Congress “limited its abolition of derivative jurisdiction to cases removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, not those removed under other sections like § 1442, the federal-officer removal statute.” Id. Accordingly, the derivative jurisdiction doctrine still applies in cases, as here, removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Id. III. Analysis Applying these principles, I conclude that, although the Court would have had subject matter jurisdiction had Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint here, pursuant to the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction,6 the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s removed state court Complaint. While Plaintiff’s Complaint is not a model of clarity, it is clear that he is asking for judicial review of Defendant SSA’s denial of benefits decision because he asks the Court “to look over my case and see that I am disabled and can not work.” (Doc. 1-2 at 2). Federal law

Here, Defendant SSA filed their Motion raising the issue of derivative jurisdiction well within thirty days of removal.

Here, Plaintiff filed his complaint seeking judicial review of Defendant SSA’s denial of benefits decision in state court—a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over such a claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Because Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court, this Court may not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. See Lambert Run Coal Co., 258 U.S. at 382. Therefore, I find that the Court must abstain from exercising subject- matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint and should dismiss the Complaint pursuant to the derivative jurisdiction doctrine. See Hasan v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Greenfield Milwaukee, Case No. 2024 WL 1637497, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 16, 2024) (dismissing a plaintiff’s complaint seeking judicial review of SSA’s final benefits decision that was initially filed in state court under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine); see also Antonio M. v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm’r, 2022 WL 2274864, at *2 (D. Me. June 23, 2022) (same); Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL 7863948, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2020) (same); Whitworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 1912408, at *1 (S.D. Ill. June 3, 2022) (same).7 The Supreme Court has also explained that: [P]recedent involving other statutes granting exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts suggests that, if such an action were not within the class of cases over which state and federal courts have Accordingly, I recommend that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. See Hasan, 2024 WL 1637497, at *1 (“When the derivative jurisdiction doctrine is timely raised, then, it properly results in dismissal without prejudice.” (citations omitted)).

IV. Conclusion For the forgoing reasons, I recommend that the Court GRANT the Motion and DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice.

tila thay CUA. A_— KIRTAN KHALSA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party must file any objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.

concurrent jurisdiction, the proper course for a federal district court to take after removal would be to dismiss the case altogether, without reaching the merits.

Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 24 n. 27 (1983).