Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02075/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Refugio Joe Rojas
Appellant
Secretary of Health & Human Services
Appellee

Document Text:

( 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

REFUGIO JOE ROJAS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

u· FILED 

flited S!_!tes Courr of Appeals J enth Circuit 

AUG 1 .~ 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKE 

Clerk R 

v. ) No. 90-2075 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) (Dist. N.M. CV 88-337 JB) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges . 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Refugio Joe Rojas appeals from the 

district court's February 7, 1990 opinion and order dismissing 

this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No 

administrative hearing was held in this case, and only "final 

decision[s] of the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] made 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2075 Document: 010110040839 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 1 
.. after a hearing" are subject to judicial review. 42 u.s.c. 

§ 405(g). The Supreme Court, interpreting§ 405(g) in accordance 

with its plain meaning, has indicated that judicial review of 

administrative decisions made without a hearing is generally 

precluded. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). An exception 

exists, however, for "colorable constitutional claims"; in such 

cases, "the availability of judicial review is presumed." Id. at 

109. 

Plaintiff argues that the following three claims provide a 

sufficient basis for the district court to exercise jurisdiction: 

(1) plaintiff "suffered from a mental impairment at the time his 

prior application for disability insurance benefits was denied 

which (arguably) prevented him from understanding and protecting 

his legal rights" in violation of the Due Process Clause; 

(2) plaintiff proceeded prose during his prior administrative 

appeal; and (3) the ALJ in the prior administrative appeal applied 

"incorrect legal standards." Appellant's Br. at 5, 9, 11. After 

reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we conclude that 

plaintiff has failed to state a colorable constitutional claim. 

First, plaintiff has not offered sufficient evidence of 

mental impairment for us to conclude that the Due Process Clause 

was violated. In support of his argument, plaintiff refers to 

certain evidence contained in a vocational report upon which the 

ALJ relied in denying plaintiff's previous application for 

benefits. The evidence was that: (1) plaintiff had a verbal 

IQ of 75 and the equivalent of a second grade education; 

(2) plaintiff suffers from a learning disability; and (3) his 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2075 Document: 010110040839 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 2 
"'physical and/or psychological limitations' create" a 

"'significant'" impairment. Appellant's Br. at 5-6 (quoting 

R. Vol. II at 122). 1 We do not believe that such evidence is 

sufficient to constitute a colorable constitutional claim. Cf. 

Young v. Bowen, 858 F.2d 951, 953-55 (4th Cir. 1988) (colorable 

constitutional claim raised where "voluminous" record irrefutably 

indicated that claimant was incompetent; among other things, the 

record contained evidence that claimant "suffered from personality 

disorders and alcoholism for much of her adult life" and that 

claimant's verbal and performance IQ was 67 and her full-scale IQ 

was 66); Elchediak v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 892, 893-94 (11th Cir. 

1985) (per curiam) (colorable constitutional claim raised where 

claimant had failed to pursue his previous applications for 

benefits beyond initial stages of review and where "[a]ll the 

available medical evidence confirm[ed] that he suffer[ed] from" 

paranoid schizophrenia); Shrader v. Harris, 631 F.2d 297, 299-303 

(4th Cir. 1980) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine 

claimant's mental capacity where claimant had introduced evidence 

that he was psychotic). Moreover, the report to which plaintiff 

makes reference contains some countervailing evidence. See R. 

Vol. II at 132. 

1 Plaintiff has not offered any proof of mental impairment 

beyond that which was part of the record in his previous 

application for benefits. On appeal, plaintiff argues that this 

case was dismissed too quickly for him to have determined whether 

additional evidence is available to support his claim. See 

Appellant's Br. at 10. However, plaintiff has had sufficient time 

following the district court's dismissal order to determine 

whether any new evidence exists. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2075 Document: 010110040839 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 3 
f 

, 

We are also reluctant to find a due process violation in 

light of the fact that plaintiff was able to follow the procedures 

necessary to obtain an administrative hearing on his prior 

application for benefits (although he did not file a subsequent 

appeal to the Social Security Appeals Council). In addition, our 

review of the hearing transcript suggests that plaintiff was able 

to present his case adequately. 

Second, although plaintiff did not have the benefit of 

counsel at the hearing, he has failed to demonstrate that this 

amounts to a colorable constitutional claim. Plaintiff was 

advised of his right to representation at the hearing. See R. 

Vol. II at 17. Moreover, as noted above, plaintiff was able to 

follow the administrative procedures necessary to obtain the 

hearing before the ALJ, and our review of the hearing transcript 

indicated that plaintiff was able to present his claim adequately. 

Finally, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ's 

alleged failure to apply proper legal standards in the prior 

administrative appeal rises to the level of a constitutional 

violation. Therefore, for all of the above reasons, we AFFIRM the 

district court's February 7, 1990 order dismissing this case for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2075 Document: 010110040839 Date Filed: 08/14/1990 Page: 4