Marvin v. Peldunas

MARK MARVIN, Plaintiff, v. MARTHA PELDUNAS, DARCIE M. MILLER,COUNTY OF ORANGE, Defendants.

16-cv-1456 (NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 16, 2020

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Mark Marvin ("Plaintiff") brings this pro se action against Martha Peldunas ("Peldunas"), Darcie M. Miller ("Miller"), and the County of Orange (the "County", collectively "Defendants"). Defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's complaint, dated February 23, 2016, and the attached exhibits. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff, aged 66, applied to the Orange County Department of Social Services ("DSS") for renewal of his Medicaid medical coverage. On August 12, 2015, DSS advised Plaintiff to submit verification that he had applied for Social Security retirement benefits by August 24, 2015. On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff advised DSS of his refusal to apply for Social Security retirement benefits. Plaintiff planned to wait to apply for Social Security retirement benefits until age 70. Applying for benefits at age 66—which Plaintiff defines as "prematurely"—results in a lower monthly benefit than applying at age 70.¹ On October 20, 2015, DSS issued a letter denying Plaintiff's application for renewal of Medicaid coverage.

On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff requested a fair hearing to appeal DSS's decision. On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff spoke with an employee of the Fair Hearing Unit. That employee informed Plaintiff that his application was denied due to 18 N.Y.C.R.R. 360-2.3(c)(1). The regulation provides that "social services district[s] must review all sources of income and resources available or potentially available to the applicant" when determining Medicaid eligibility. On November 1, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a letter ("Application to Reverse Denial of Medicaid Coverage") to the Fair Hearing Unit, explaining why his denial should be reversed. In his letter, Plaintiff argued that the requirement that he apply for "premature" Social Security retirement benefits is a violation of federal law. He also argued that Social Security benefits do not qualify as potential income or resources "available" to him because he cannot afford to take "reduced" Social Security benefits. On November 24, 2015 a fair hearing was held in Orange County before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Joel Dulberg. Defendant Peldunas, an Orange County DSS Fair Hearing Supervisor, appeared on behalf of DSS. ALJ Dulberg denied Plaintiff's appeal, finding no factual disputes and determining that DSS's denial was consistent with state law and regulations.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Miller, Orange County Commissioner of Social Services, failed to "properly train and supervise subordinates that Social Security benefits are elective and cannot be made obligatory by a law which is unconstitutionally vague and overreaching."

Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the denial, he was denied affordable healthcare, specifically follow-up evaluations and cataract surgery. He requests declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages for loss of vision and cataract treatment, punitive damages, and reasonable legal costs.

STANDARD ON A MOTION TO DIMISS

On a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper unless the complaint "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When there are well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, "a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 679. "Although for the purpose of a motion to dismiss [a court] must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [it is] 'not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). It is not necessary for the complaint to assert "detailed factual allegations," but must allege "more than labels and conclusions." Twombly, 550 U.S at 555. The facts in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true." Id.

"Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, even following Twombly and Iqbal." Thomas v. Westchester, No. 12-CV-6718 (CS), 2013 WL 3357171, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2013). The court should read pro se complaints "'to raise thestrongest arguments that they suggest,'" Kevilly v. New York, 410 F. App'x 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (quoting Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310 (2d Cir. 2006) ); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) ("even after Twombly, though, we remain obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally"). "However, even pro se plaintiffs asserting civil rights claims cannot withstand a motion to dismiss unless their pleadings contain factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Jackson v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Labor, 709 F. Supp. 2d 218, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotations omitted). Dismissal is justified, therefore, where "the complaint lacks an allegation regarding an element necessary to obtain relief," and therefore, the "duty to liberally construe a plaintiff's complaint [is not] the equivalent of a duty to re-write it." Geldzahler v. New York Medical College, 663 F. Supp. 2d 379, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal citations and alterations omitted).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a "court may consider the facts as asserted within the four corners of the complaint together with the documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and any documents incorporated in the complaint by reference." Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts also may consider "matters of which judicial notice may be taken" and "documents either in plaintiffs' possession or of which plaintiffs had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit." Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993).

DISCUSSION

I. 42 USC § 1983 Claims

Plaintiff does not clearly state his claims. After careful analysis of the complaint and attached materials, this Court finds Plaintiff to be asserting two claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.²

Section 1983 provides, in relevant part, that: "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 "is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979); see Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 225 (2d Cir. 2004). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "(1) the challenged conduct was attributable to a person who was acting under color of state law and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." Castilla v. City of New York, No. 09 Civ. 5446, 2013 WL 1803896, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 25, 2013); see Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010). Therefore, a Section 1983 claim has two essential elements: (1) the defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) as a result of the defendant's actions, the plaintiff suffered a denial of his federal statutory rights, or his constitutional rights or privileges. See Annis v. Cnty. of Westchester, 136 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir. 1998); Quinn v. Nassau Cnty. Police Dep't, 53 F. Supp. 2d 347, 354(E.D.N.Y. 1999) (noting that Section 1983 "furnishes a cause of action for the violation of federal rights created by the Constitution") (citation omitted).

A. Federal Right to Elect to Receive Social Security Benefits

Plaintiff alleges he has a federal right to decide when and whether to elect to receive Social Security retirement benefits and that his denial of Medicaid coverage violated that right. Plaintiff points to various case law to prove the existence of this federal right. However, even assuming that these cases support the existence of a federal right,³ Plaintiff fails to assert any facts demonstrating the relevance of these cases to this scenario. For instance, Plaintiff cites to United States v. Lee, a case which concerns whether certain Amish employers and employees are exempt from paying social security taxes due to their religious beliefs. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982). The Supreme Court found that payment of Social Security taxes and receipt of Social Security retirement benefits interferes with Amish religious beliefs. Id. at 257. However, it also found that the government's interest in mandatory and continuous participation in the Social Security program is so strong that it justifies the religious burden. Id. at 258-59. The only pertinent finding from this case is the Court's recognition of an Amish religious interest in not electing to receive Social Security retirement benefits. However, Plaintiff does not assert a similar religious belief; far from that, Plaintiff indicates he plans to elect to receive Social Security retirement benefits at age 70. Similarly, Plaintiff cites to Ellender v. Schweiker, which addresses the legality of "cross-program recovery",...