History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ford v. Astrue
808 F. Supp. 2d 150
D.D.C.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • Ford was found disabled and approved for Social Security benefits in January 2006, which were later reduced significantly.
  • An administrative error delayed SSA action on Ford's appeal after reductions, prompting a pro se suit filed in May 2009 in DC Superior Court and removal to this court.
  • SSA reviewed its 2006 reduction in August 2009 and again informed Ford he could appeal the reconsideration within 60 days, but Ford did not pursue further review.
  • Ford's amended complaint (filed July 17, 2009) seeks relief in this court, but the SSA's reconsideration left the 2006 reduction intact.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss on exhaustion grounds and on the theory that § 1983 wrongful-acts claims cannot be brought against federal actors.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Ford exhausted administrative remedies for judicial review Ford argues exhaustion is not a prerequisite for § 1983 claims Defendants contend exhaustion is mandatory before judicial review of SSA decisions Exhaustion required; no final agency decision obtained; no judicial review
Whether § 1983 claims can be brought against federal SSA employees Ford argues constitutional tort claims may be pursued against federal actors § 1983 cannot reach federal actors; Bivens unlikely applicable in SSA context § 1983 claims cannot be maintained against federal SSA employees; Bivens not available here

Key Cases Cited

  • Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1975) (defines final decision for SSA review framework)
  • Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2000) (finality requirement for SSA review; Council review pivotal)
  • Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must contain plausible facts to state a claim)
  • Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
  • Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1988) (Bivens not extended to SSA context due to existing statutory remedies)
  • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognizes constitutional torts against federal actors in narrow circumstances)
  • Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1993) (exacting pleading standards in civil rights actions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Ford v. Astrue
Court Name: District Court, District of Columbia
Date Published: Sep 2, 2011
Citation: 808 F. Supp. 2d 150
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2009-1243
Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.