Miller v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 29, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-1178
• Status: Published

Opinion

gm

FELEB

JU&‘»§ 29 2089 Clerk, U.S. District and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) Bankruptcy Coutts Julia Miller, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ,. ) 09 11/8 Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM GPINION

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se complaint.

The application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff received a communication from the Social Security Administration ("SSA") regarding payments made by the SSA to recipients under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. See Compl. EX. The complaint states that the communication is "confusing" and potentially "misleading." Compl. at l-2. Plaintiff asks this court to confirm that the process identified in the SSA’S notification "is not a scam." Id. at 2. Further, plaintiff seeks to have "this complaint filed for the record" to establish that plaintiff "only accessed this onetimc payment for the month of May 15, 2()09." ld.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction Kokkonen v. Guardz`an Lzfe Ins. C0. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (l994). The jurisdiction of this court is expressly limited by Article III of the United States Constitution to hearing and deciding actual cases or controversies. "No

principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of govemment than the

constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies." Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Righls Organz`zation, 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976) (quoted in Raines v. Byra', 521 U.S. 811, 818 (l997) and DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006)).

The complaint in this case does not identify any case or controversy. lt also does not indicate that the plaintiff has been injured in any way by the defendant, the SSA, which is an essential component of a case or controversy. See Lujan v. Defena'ers of Wildlzfe, 54 U.S. 555, 559 (1992). While an agency may well be willing to provide an explanation or clarification of its own statements, outside the context of a case or controversy, a federal court does not do so. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An

appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

ates District Judge

§ v \ \¥ § \\%