Patrick Comack v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: November 8, 2024
• Docket: 23-11115
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 1 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11115 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

PATRICK COMACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-10065-JEM ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 2 of 8

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11115

Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Patrick Comack, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se civil complaint arising from his still pending, underlying, social security proceed- ings involving his claim for supplemental security income (SSI). Comack asserts the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to serve the Commissioner of the Social Security Admin- istration (the Commissioner) and for failing to exhaust his admin- istrative remedies. 1 After review, 2 we affirm the district court. I. FAILURE TO SERVE Although we “give liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants, we nevertheless have required them to conform to procedural rules.” Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). To serve the United States, a party must deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district where the action is

1 Comack also contends the district court erred in denying his motions (1) for

default, (2) for preliminary injunction, and (3) to “unrestrict” his PACER ac- cess. These motions were ultimately denied as moot once the district court dismissed Comack’s complaint. Therefore, because we affirm the dismissal of Comack’s complaint, we also affirm the denial of those motions as moot. 2 We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for insuffi-

cient service of process. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). We also review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative reme- dies. See Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 1997). USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 3 of 8

23-11115 Opinion of the Court 3

brought, and send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i), (B). 3 In addition, to serve a United States agency, such as the Social Security Administration (SSA), a party must serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or employee. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2). “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the com- plaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “[I]f the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appro- priate period.” Id. Under Rule 4, the court must allow a party rea- sonable time to cure its failure to serve a person required to be served under Rule 4(i)(2), if the party has either served the United

3 We note the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Social

Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Supplemental Rules) became effec- tive on December 1, 2022. Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 1. Supplemental Rule 3 addresses service and states “[t]he plaintiff need not serve a summons and complaint under Civil Rule 4,” but rather, “[t]he court must notify the Com- missioner of the commencement of the action by transmitting a Notice of Electronic Filing to the appropriate office within the Social Security Admin- istration’s Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney for the district where the action is filed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 3. Comack’s argument the Supplemental Rules should apply is meritless because they be- came effective on December 1, 2022, and were not applicable at the time Comack filed his complaint in July 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. SUPP SS Rule 1. USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 4 of 8

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11115

States Attorney or the Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4)(A). The district court did not err in dismissing Comack’s com- plaint for his failure to properly serve the Commissioner. See Albra, 490 F.3d at 829. Applying Rule 4, Comack had 90 days to complete service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). While Comack sent the summons and complaint to the agency, he did not timely serve the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida or the U.S. Attorney General, a fact that Comack conceded in both his motion for default judgment and his response to the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for in- sufficient process. Further, although Comack argues he should be allowed a reasonable time to cure defective service, his reliance on Rule 4(i) is misplaced, as under that rule, a court must allow a party reasonable time to cure its failure only if the party has either served the United States Attorney or the Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4)(A). Finally, to the extent that Comack argues he followed the instructions provided to him on the Com- missioner’s website, and that his failure should be excused because of his unfamiliarity with procedural rules, this argument is unper- suasive. Specifically, this Court requires pro se litigants to conform with procedural rules. See Albra, 490 F.3d at 829. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to serve. II. FAILURE TO EXHAUST A. Exhaustion The final determination of the Commissioner after a hear- ing on SSI is subject to judicial review as provided in § 405(g). 42 USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 5 of 8

23-11115 Opinion of the Court 5

U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Section 405(g) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irre- spective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “[U]nder this statute, a claimant must satisfy two jurisdictional prerequisites to obtain judicial review of an agency decision.” Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 1997). “First, the individual must have presented a claim for benefits to the Secretary. Second, the claim- ant must have exhausted the administrative remedies.” Id. (empha- sis and internal citation omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court has ex- plained that exhausting administrative remedies prevents: premature interference with agency processes, so that the agency may function efficiently and so that it may have an opportunity to correct its own errors, to af- ford the parties and the courts the benefit of its expe- rience and expertise, and to compile a record which is adequate for judicial review. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 765 (1975). The district court did not err in dismissing Comack’s com- plaint because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Comack had not yet received a final decision by the Commissioner, as his social security proceedings are still ongoing, meaning that he has not completed each step of the administrative review process. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Crayton, 120 F.3d at 1220. USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 6 of 8

6 Opinion of the Court 23-11115

B. Waiver A “claimant must have completed each of the steps of the administrative review process unless exhaustion has been waived.” Crayton, 120 F.3d at 1220. We have “applied a three-part test to determine whether waiver is applicable: (1) are the issues entirely collateral to the claim for benefits; (2) would failure to waive cause irreparable injury; and (3) would exhaustion be futile.” Id. In Mathews v. Eldridge, when the claimant’s disability benefits were terminated, he did not seek agency reconsideration, but rather brought an action in federal district court alleging the termination of benefits without a hearing violated his constitutional due process rights. 424 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1976). The Supreme Court held that judicial waiver of exhaustion was appropriate because he had chal- lenged the constitutional validity of administrative procedures. Id. at 326-32. We later interpreted Mathews as holding that exhaustion may be excused only when the contested issue is constitutional, collateral to the consideration of the claimant’s claim, and its reso- lution, therefore, falls outside the agency’s authority. Crayton, 120 F.3d at 1222. In Bowen v. City of New York, the Supreme Court determined the claimants stood “on a different footing from one arguing merely that an agency incorrectly applied its regulation,” as the dis- trict court in that case had found “a systemwide, unrevealed policy that was inconsistent in critically important ways with established regulations.” 476 U.S. 467, 485 (1986). The Court agreed with the district court that, because the illegal policy was being adhered to USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 7 of 8

23-11115 Opinion of the Court 7

by state agencies due to pressure from SSA, “exhaustion would have been futile” and “there was nothing to be gained from permit- ting the compilation of a detailed factual record, or from agency expertise.” Id. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that its holdings excusing exhaustion in some cases do not suggest exhaus- tion should be excused “whenever a claimant alleges an irregularity in agency proceedings.” Id. Waiver of exhaustion is not applicable to Comack’s case. Crayton, 120 F.3d at 1220. Comack’s allegations of error stem di- rectly from his claim for benefits. Unlike Mathews, where the claimant alleged the termination of his benefits without a hearing violated his due process rights, Comack’s allegations specifically in- volve the behavior of the Miami Office, and the wage information considered by the two Administrative Law Judges, all of which falls with the SSA’s agency authority. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 324-25. Un- like in Bowen, exhaustion would not be futile because Comack’s continued pursuit of his claim at the administrative level could po- tentially result in a disability determination in his favor, especially given the fact the second Remand Order dealt with Comack’s wage information specifically. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 485. Therefore, be- cause Comack cannot meet two of the three parts of the test that we use to determine whether waiver is applicable, waiver of ex- haustion is not applicable to his case. C. Other Avenues of Review While Comack argues the district court had jurisdiction to consider his case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, this USCA11 Case: 23-11115 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024 Page: 8 of 8

8 Opinion of the Court 23-11115

argument is meritless. As to § 1331, the Social Security Act pro- vides that no action against the Commissioner may be brought pur- suant to § 1331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing federal courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitu- tion, laws, or treaties of the United States”); 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (pro- scribing bringing an action against the Commissioner under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to recover on any claim arising under subsection II of the Social Security Act, which governs old-age, survivors, and dis- ability insurance benefits); see also Jackson v. Astrue, 506 F.3d 1349, 1353 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding the remedies outlined in § 405 are the exclusive source of federal court jurisdiction over cases involv- ing SSI). As to § 1367, this section provides for supplemental juris- diction over additional claims in cases where there is already an in- dependent basis for jurisdiction, and here, there is no basis for ju- risdiction under either § 405(g) or (h). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (h). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dis- missal for Comack’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. AFFIRMED.