Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02113/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Frederick Eldred Renneke
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2113

___________

Frederick Eldred Renneke, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Michael J. Astrue, Social Security *

Administration, Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2008

Filed: April 25, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Eldred Renneke (Renneke), a past recipient of Supplemental Security

Income benefits, appeals the district court’s1

 sua sponte dismissal of his case for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction based on Renneke’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. Upon de novo review, see In Home Health, Inc. v. Shalala, 272 F.3d 554,

559 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies is reviewed de novo),

Appellate Case: 07-2113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2008 Entry ID: 3427247
-2-

we conclude dismissal was proper because Renneke is challenging the Social Security

Administration’s (SSA) notice of overpayment and termination of his benefits, and is

still awaiting a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) in the SSA’s appeals

process. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (individual can obtain judicial review of “final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security”), 405(h) (findings and decision of

Commissioner are binding; findings and decision will not be reviewed “except as

herein provided”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a) (administrative review process includes

initial determination, reconsideration, ALJ hearing, and review by Appeals Council);

Anderson v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he Social Security Act

precludes general federal subject matter jurisdiction until administrative remedies

have been exhausted.”). Although Renneke does allege constitutional violations based

on the SSA’s policies and procedures, we conclude these claims are inextricably

intertwined with his claim for benefits. Cf. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614

(1984) (concluding, where the plaintiffs raised procedural claims related to the

Secretary’s decision to deny payments for surgery, those claims were inextricably

intertwined with plaintiffs’ claims for benefits; all aspects of claims should be

channeled into the administrative process because the relief sought was invalidation

of the Secretary’s policy and declaration that a particular surgery was reimbursable).

To the extent Renneke’s initial filings may be interpreted as seeking a writ of

mandamus, we conclude Renneke did not meet the relevant jurisdictional

requirements, because he did not allege (1) the SSA has a nondiscretionary duty to

provide him an administrative hearing within a certain amount of time, see Taylor v.

Barnhart, 399 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining a writ of mandamus only is

intended to provide a remedy if the plaintiff has exhausted all other avenues of relief

and the defendant owes plaintiff a clear nondiscretionary duty), or (2) the SSA refused

to afford him an administrative hearing, cf. Belles v. Schweiker, 720 F.2d 509, 510,

513 (8th Cir. 1983) (stating the district court had mandamus jurisdiction over the

Appellate Case: 07-2113 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2008 Entry ID: 3427247
-3-

 plaintiff’s claim that she was denied, inter alia, an opportunity for recoupment hearing

to address injuries related to withheld social security benefits). 

We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2113 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2008 Entry ID: 3427247