Chambers v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

RESHUNN CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,COMMISSIONER NANCY A. BERRYHILL, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-1062-K-BH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

August 12, 2020

Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge¹

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court for recommendation are Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed November 18, 2019 (doc. 61); Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 5, 2020 (doc. 95); and Plaintiff's No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment Affidavit in Support Order Page Government Defendant SSA-Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill and Mr. Leonard Burns, Claim Representative, and Plaintiff's No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment Affidavit in Support Order Page Government Defendant U.S. Department of Education-Betsy Devos, Secretary, filed on June 19, 2020 (docs. 104, 106). Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the federal defendants' motion to dismiss should be GRANTED in part, and the motions for summary judgment should all be DENIED as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2019, Reshunn Chambers (Plaintiff) sued multiple private entities and government officials, including the Secretary of the Department of Treasury (Treasury Secretary), the Secretary of the Department of Education (Education Secretary), and the Commissioner of the Social SecurityAdministration (Commissioner),² in their official capacities only, as well as a claims representative with the Social Security Administration (Claims Rep) in his official and individual capacities (collectively Federal Defendants), over his federal benefits. (See docs. 3, 56.) He seeks $5 million dollars per defendant, immediate release of $100,000.00 allegedly held by the defendants that is currently due and owed to him, and a declaration that the defendants "maliciously, intentionally, and illegally" withheld his monthly disability benefits "without legal, just cause." (See doc. 56 at 15-16.)

In 2003, Plaintiff sustained significant back injuries as a result of a work-related accident involving an eighteen-wheeler. (doc. 56 at 2.)³ He applied for disability benefits with the Social Security Administration (SSA), and was ultimately awarded disability benefits in 2007. (Id.)

On July 9, 2009, Plaintiff applied for a total and permanent disability discharge of his student-loan debt with the Department of Education (DOT). (doc. 62 at 4.) On April 4, 2011, he was notified that he was approved for a three-year conditional discharge, effective until July 19, 2012, and that a full discharge was contingent on him meeting certain conditions, including, among other things, providing suitable annual certifications of his income and employment status to the DOT. (Id. at 5.) Between December 2011 and September 2012, Plaintiff was sent multiple letters requesting employment income documentation and explaining that his student loans would be reinstated if he did not provide the information. (Id. at 8-17.) On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff was informed that he was ineligible for final discharge because he had failed to provide the requested documentation, and that his student-loan debt had been reinstated. (Id. at 18.) The notice letter informed him that his studentloan would be returned to conditional discharge status if he submitted the requested documentation within a year. (Id.) Plaintiff did not appeal this decision or provide the documentation.

On March 18, 2015, the SSA notified Plaintiff that he was no longer eligible to receive benefits as of January 2012, due to engaging in substantial work. (Id. at 21-23.) The notice letter informed him of his right to seek an administrative appeal within 60 days after receiving the letter. (Id. at 22.) On March 23, 2015, the SSA sent Plaintiff another letter explaining that he had been overpaid benefits and was required to repay the overpayment. (Id. at 37.) Plaintiff requested an administrative appeal of both the cessation of benefits and overpayment demand. (doc. 67 at 17.) On April 30, 2018, the SSA notified Plaintiff that it had reviewed the evidence from his disability claim and revised its decision to find that his disability was continuing. (doc. 62 at 24-28.) On September 12, 2018, the SSA notified Plaintiff that he was entitled to payments from December 2014 forward, but that he had been overpaid $22,128.90, and that this amount would be deducted from future disability payments. (Id. at 29.) Plaintiff administratively appealed this determination. (doc. 67 at 17.) On January 19, 2019, Plaintiff went to a local SSA office to request a "crucial check," and he was advanced $1,495.00. (doc. 62 at 33.)

On March 20, 2019, Plaintiff was notified that his student-loan debt with the DOT had been referred to the Department of the Treasury (DOT) for administrative offset, and that up to 15 percent of his future Social Security benefits would be withheld and applied against that debt. (doc. 62 at 32.) In May 2019, Plaintiff informed the student loan servicer that he intended to apply for a discharge based on total and permanent disability, and collection on his student-loan debt was suspended for a 120-day period. (Id. at 38.) Because Plaintiff did not submit a new application for discharge, the suspension of collection activities was lifted on August 22, 2019. (Id.)

On May 19, 2019, the SSA sent Plaintiff a letter informing him that he was obligated to repay the crucial check advance from January 2019, and that he could either repay it in full, or it would be withheld from his future payments. (Id. at 33-34.) On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff administratively appealed this decision by submitting a reconsideration request to the SSA; he also complained about the reduction of his monthly benefits and about "wrongful and illegal calculations against [him]." (Id. at 36.) The SSA responded to the reconsideration request by letter dated May 23, 2019, explaining that the reduction of his monthly payments was because a substantial amount of past wages had been removed from his work history, which caused his monthly benefit to be recomputed at a lower amount. (Id. at 37.) Plaintiff allegedly appealed this decision.

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed his verified amended complaint, generally asserting claims for "discriminatory practices;" "wrongful and illegal terminating, suspending, [and] denial of disability monthly benefits;" "negligent acts and omissions [and] [r]etaliation for filing back-claims and under pay claims" in violation of agency regulations; "[d]efamation, slander, libel, and reporting of adverse credit reporting;" "dereliction of duty" for "threats demanding overpayments [and] threats of garnishment of [ ] disability monthly benefits payments;" breaches of fiduciary duty; fraud; misrepresentations and deceptive trade practices; tortious interference; breach of contract; and violations of Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). (See doc. 56 at 12-13) He alleges that the SSA and Claims Rep (collectively SSA Defendants) "maliciously, wrongfully and illegally withheld" over $30,000.00 of his "disability monthly benefits payments" between April 2014 and May 2019, and that they "terminated, suspended, and otherwise denied [his social security benefits] without first obtainingauthorization or approval from the United States Social Security Administration Appeals Council." (Id. at 7-8.) He claims that "[t]his illegal conduct resulted in [him] not receiving a [disability check] on at least two [ ] occasions" in 2017 and 2018, including a 2018 check for $33,000.00. (Id. at 8.) He alleges that the SSA and the DOT are attempting to withhold 15 percent of his monthly disability payments to "federally offset" a student-loan debt that he does not owe. (Id. at 8-9.) He claims that this violates his due process rights and the FDCPA because he never received "timely notice of the purported debt or the proper and timely right to appeal." (Id.)

Plaintiff also alleges that the DOE has engaged in discriminatory practices, acts, and omissions in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the FDCPA because it is using "unfair or unconscionable means" to collect a student-loan debt that he does not owe, including "subjecting him to harassing, abusive, or fraudulent debt collection tactics." (Id. at 9-10.) He claims he was awarded a total and permanent disability discharge of his student loans, but the DOE refuses to honor that discharge. (Id. at 10.) He also claims the DOE violated his rights to due process and equal treatment because it "did not afford him an opportunity to timely appeal any decision that would adversely affect his award for Total and Permanent Disability Discharge." (Id.)

Federal Defendants move to dismiss all claims against them in their official capacities. (doc. 61, 62.) They also move for summary judgment, and Plaintiff in turn seeks summary judgment on his claims against them. (docs. 95, 97, 104-07.)

II. RULE 12(b)(1)

Federal Defendants, in their official capacities,⁴ move to dismiss Plaintiff's tort claims againstthem and his claims against SSA Defendants under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of jurisdiction. (doc. 61 at 14-17.)

A. Rule 12(b)(1) Standard

A motion to dismiss under challenges a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). They "must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal...