Greg Earnest v. Commissioner Social Security
669 F. App'x 618
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Earnest filed suit against the Commissioner of Social Security challenging agency conduct after a April 2015 reassessment; he conceded he remained eligible and continued receiving benefits.
- The complaint did not seek review of a final SSA decision and instead alleged vague obstruction by the agency.
- A Magistrate Judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and for subject-matter jurisdiction, finding no basis for federal jurisdiction except a possible mandamus petition.
- The Magistrate concluded the complaint failed to state a plausible mandamus claim and that amendment would be futile; Earnest filed no objections to the report and recommendation.
- The District Court adopted the R&R, dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, and Earnest appealed; he also moved for appointment of counsel and judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) | Earnest sought relief related to SSA actions (implicitly seeking federal review). | No final SSA decision was before the court, so § 405(g) does not confer jurisdiction. | Court: No jurisdiction under § 405(g); dismissal proper. |
| Availability/plausibility of mandamus relief | Federal court should compel SSA action because agency obstructed his case. | Complaint alleges only vague, conclusory obstruction; mandamus standards not met. | Court: Mandamus claim not plausibly pleaded; dismissal proper. |
| Leave to amend / futility | Earnest did not propose specific amendable facts; argued case facts suffice. | Allegations and appellate statements show remedy lies in SSA proceedings; amendment would be futile. | Court: Amendment would be futile; dismissal without leave to amend affirmed. |
| Motions (appointment of counsel; judgment on the pleadings; dismissal) | Sought counsel and judgment on the pleadings; asserted hardships and that defendant proved his case. | Commissioner opposed appointment and sought dismissal or summary affirmance. | Court: Motions denied; Commissioner’s motion to dismiss denied as moot; summary affirmance of district court judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard for pleading plausibility on screening review)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to state a claim)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile)