Jackson v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: April 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00248
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFERY JACKSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-248 v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff Jeffery Jackson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against the United States Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and the United States Department of Treasury claiming fraud, fraudulent overpayment, violations of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, and violations of his Fifth Amendment rights. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Before the Court are Magistrate Judge Berens’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 7) and Jackson’s objection to the R&R (ECF No. 8). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will adopt the R&R and reject Jackson’s objection. The R&R sufficiently outlines Jackson’s claims as the “Emperor of the Moorish Empire” who has been subjected to an allegedly unconstitutional “fraudulent financial system based on fiat currency.” (R&R 2.) At its core, Jackson takes issue with the SSA seeking to recover overpayments, and he claims the SSA owes him specie currency at a value equivalent to the benefits SSA has paid him. Having reviewed Jackson’s claims, Magistrate Judge Berens recommends dismissal on two independent grounds. First, the SSA and the Department of Treasury are entitled to sovereign immunity; Jackson has not met his burden to demonstrate that immunity was waived. Second, Jackson’s claims are frivolous. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Berens. Jackson does not meet his burden to show that Defendants waived sovereign immunity. Additionally, SSA payments use proper currency, see, e.g., United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176, 1181 (6th Cir. 1976) (explaining that claims

challenging the federal government monetary system are “clearly frivolous”), and Jackson’s claim to special treaty rights under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship that would make him immune from the laws of the United States is “patently frivolous.” Abdullah v. Morton, No. 1:16-cv-1292, 2017 WL 2387833, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2017) (collecting cases). Jackson’s objection to Magistrate Judge Berens’s R&R does not question these legal conclusions. Instead, Jackson argues that Magistrate Judge Berens wrote the R&R as retaliation for Jackson’s hours-prior civil complaint filed against Magistrate Judge Berens, citing only the timing of Magistrate Judge Berens’s R&R in relation to this complaint. Jackson filed his civil complaint against Magistrate Judge Berens at 12:31 PM on March 10, 2025. Magistrate Judge

Berens filed her R&R around three hours later, at 3:48 PM on March 10, 2025. The timing does not reflect any malfeasance or retaliatory motive from Magistrate Judge Berens, who meticulously provided multiple citations in support of her thorough legal conclusions in the R&R. But timing is what Jackson relies upon for his argument. Jackson argues Magistrate Judge Berens’s R&R must be biased because it calls for dismissal, but “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality” claim. Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606, 617 (6th Cir. 2016). Jackson provides no facts to support his baseless claim of judicial bias and does nothing to contest Magistrate Judge Berens’s correct legal conclusions. Thus, the Court will reject his accusation, which is based in nothing more than the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. As the Court noted, Magistrate Judge Berens properly analyzed each legal issue presented. The suggestion that she rushed through an analysis in an attempt to retaliate finds no support in the record. Magistrate Judge Berens’s R&R is sound and complete; the Court will adopt it as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Berens’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (ECF No. 8) is OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: April 24, 2025 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE