2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-4-2008 

# Abuhouran v

. S o c i al S ecurity Admn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3551

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Abuhour an v

. S oc i al S e c urity Admn" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 721. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/721NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 3551

___________ A D M A J IR IE S A B U H O U R A N , A ppel l ant

v. SOCI AL SECU RI TY A DM I NI STRATI ON ; LI ND A S. M CM AH ON ; M R. THA YER AND MS . RO DR I GUE S ; NE W J E RS E Y M OT OR VE HI CL E CO M M I S S I ON AND THE STATE O F NEW J ERSEY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 02809) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S . H o ch b erg

_ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t1, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A dm a J i r i es A buhour an appe al s or der s of the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng her compl ai ntas t o t he s t at e def endant s and gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the r emai ni ng d e f e n d a n ts . W e w ill a f

f ir m .2

A buhour an fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew Jer seyagainstthe S ocial S ecuri tyA dm i nis trat i on (“SS A ”), cert ai n o f i t s em ploy ees, the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof M ot orV ehi cl e Servi ces ( “N J D M V ”) and the St at e of N ew Jer sey . N JD M V and the S t at e of N ew Jer sey(“the st at e def end ants ”) m ov ed to di sm i ss forl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on and fa i l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) . T he S S A a n d its e m p lo y e e s m o v e d to d is m is s o r i n th e a lte rn a tiv e , f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i ons , and A buhour an t i m el yappea l ed. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew a D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ism issal un d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 12 (b)(6 ) de n o v o . M erle v . U . S . , 3 5 1 F . 3 d 9 2 , 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e r e v i e w a n o r d e rg r a n t i n g s u mma ryj u d g me n td e n o v o , a n d we a p p l yth e s a me s t a n d a r d th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r ts h o u l d h a v e a p p l i e d . M BI A I n s . Co rp . v . Ro y a l I n d e m. C o ., 4 2 6 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Ab u h o u r a n a l l e g e s th a ts h e i s a n a tu r a l i z e d c i t i z e n r e s i d i n g i n Ne w J e r s e y . On J anuary12, 2006, s he al l egedl yw entt o N J D M V t o r enew herdr i ver ’ s l i cens e, w hi ch had expi r ed ei ghty ear s ear l i er . N J D M V r efus ed t o r enew herl i cens e bec aus e the i nform at i on i tc o n t a i n e d a l l e g e d l y d i d n o tm a t c h th e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y S S A . A b u h o u r a n s a ys thats he then vi s i t ed the SSA offi ce i n J er s eyC i ty , N ew J er s ey , and r eques t ed thather re c o rd s b e c o rre c ted a n d a n e w c a rd iss u e d . A b u h o u ra n a ttem p ted to p ro v e h e r id e n tity u s in g h e r c e rt if

ic a te o f n a tu ra liz a tio n , a n e x p ir e d d ri v e r’ s lic e n s e a n d a n e x p ir e d p a s s p o rt . S S A sen t A b u h o u ran a lett er c o n firm ing h er req u est fo r a n ew S o cial S ec u ri tyca rd3

r efl ect i ng the corr ecti nform at i on; how ever , L i nda M cM ahon, D eputyC om m i s s i onerof SSA , s entan anotherl ett ers hor t l yther eaf t ers t at i ng thatSSA coul d noti s s ue a Soci al Secur i tycar d beca us e the i dent i tyand age i nform at i on thatA buhour an pr ovi ded di d not ma t c h th e d a t a ma i n t a i n e d b y“ th e [ u n s p e c i f i e d ] a g e n c y ” th a tma i n t a i n s th o s e r e c o r d s . On Ju n e 6 , 2 0 0 6 , A b u h o u ra n re c e iv e d h e r re n e w e d p a ss p o rt a n d su b se q u e n tlysu b m itt e d it t o SSA i n an ef

for tt o pr ove heri dent i ty . SSA offi ci al s al l egedl yr efe rr ed t o heras “y ou p e o p le,” a v e iled re f

e re n c e to a ll A ra b s, te lli n g h e r “ y o u k n o w w h a t y o u ’v e d o n e ,” in ref ere n ce to the tr ag ed yo f S ep tem b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , an d then ca ll ing a se cu ri tyg u ard to es co rt h e r o u t. A m . C o m p l. ¶ 4 2 . A su p e rv iso r a lleg e d lya d v ise d A b u h o u ra n th a t sh e w o u ld r ece i ve a ne w Soci al Secur i tycar d r efl ect i ng the corr ecti nform at i on, butappar ent l yno act i on w as t aken unt i l A buhour an fi l ed thi s l aw s ui t . A buhour an s t at es thats he then s oughtt o have he rdr i ver ’ s l i cens e r enew ed, butN J D M V agai n i nform ed herthather i dent i fi cat i on i nform at i on di d notm at ch the dat a pr ovi ded bySSA . I n Sept ember2006, S S A m e t w ith A b u h o u ra n a n d c o rr e c te d h e r i n f o rm a tio n in a m a tte r o f

m in u te s . A b u h o u ra n a lleg e s th a t d e f e n d a n ts’ f

a ilu re to c o rre c t h e r id e n tify in g in f o rm a tio n led to the deni al of herdr i ver ’ s l i cens e, deni al of empl oym ent , deni al of m edi cal tr eatm entand deni al of the r i ghtt o t r avel oratt end eve nt s r equi r i ng “pr oper ” i dent i fi cat i on, and that d e f e n d a n ts d isc rim in a ted a g a in st h e r b a se d o n h e r Jo rd a n ian e th n icity . A b u h o u ra n a ss e rts c laim s u n d e r th e P riv a c yA c t, th e F e d e ra l T o rt C laim s A c t (“ F T C A ” ), an d B iv e n s v . S ix U n k n o w n N a m e d A g e n ts o f F e d . B u re a u o f

N a rc o tic s , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ).4

W e fi rs tadd res s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on t o g rantthe fe deral defe nd ants ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he fe der al defe ndant s pr es ent ed undi s put ed evi dence thatA buhour an oran i ndi vi dual w i th hers ame soc i al s ecur i tynum berhad appl i ed for num er ous s oci al s ecur i tycar ds overthe pas tfew deca des , and thatthes e appl i cat i ons c o n ta in e d d if

f e re n t b ir th d a te s a n d in c o n s is te n t g e n d e r i d e n tif ic a tio n s . S e e D is t. C t. O p ., a t 5 n .3 . T he Pr i vacyA ctcr eat es a ci vi l r emedyfora fe der al agenc y ’ s fai l ur e t o m a i n t a i n a n y r e c o r d c o n c e rn i n g a n y i n d i v i d u a l w i th s u c h a c c u r a c y, re lev a n c e , ti m e lin e ss , an d c o m p lete n e ss a s is n e c e ss a ryto a ss u re f a irn e ss in anydet erm i nat i on r el at i ng t o the qual i fi cat i ons , char act er , r i ght s , or o p p o rtu n iti e s o f

, o r b e n e f

its to th e in d iv id u a l th a t m a yb e m a d e o n th e b a sis o f s u c h re c o rd . . . . 5 U . S. C . § 552a. A pl ai nt i ff s eeki ng damages m us tdemonstr at e thatthe age ncy ’ s act i ons w er e “i nt ent i onal orw i l l ful . ” 5 U . S. C . § 552a( g) ( 4) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned that S S A h a d iss u e d A b u h o u ra n a n e w S o c ial S e c u rityc a rd , w h ich re n d e re d m o o t h e r c laim fori nj unct i ve r el i ef unde rthe Pr i vacyA ct . A buhour an al s o s eeks damages ; ther efor e, s he m ustadd uce f

act s suffi ci ent t o sho w that the d efen dan t s i nt ent i onal l y o r w ill fu lly r efus ed t o corr ectheri dent i fi cat i on dat a. “A n agenc yact s i n an i nt ent i onal orw i l l ful m anner

‘ ei therbycomm i t t i ng the ac tw i thoutgr ounds forbel i evi ng i tt o be l aw ful , orby fl agr ant l ydi s r egar di ng other s ’ r i ght s underthe A ct . ’ ” D et er s v. U . S. Par ol e C om m ’ n, 85 F. 3d 655, 660 ( D . C . C i r . 1996) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though A buhour an al l eges that uns peci fi ed SSA empl oy ees r efe r r ed t o heras “y ou peopl e” a nd t ol d her , “y ou know w hat5

y ou’ ve done, ” s he fa i l s t o al l ege w ho m ade thos e r emar ks , w hi ch pr ecl udes an ana l y s i s of a nyde fe nd a nt ’ s i nt e nt . A bu ho ur a n a l s o h a s fa i l e d t o r e bu tthe r e c or d e vi de nc e tha tSSA act ed i n acc or dance w i th SSA pol i cy , es peci al l yi n l i ghtof the numer ous appl i cat i ons for s oci al s ecur i tycar ds byherora per s on w i th hers oci al s ecur i tynum ber , cont ai ni ng in c o n sis ten t in f

o rm a tio n . A b u h o u ra n f a iled to p ro f

f e r e v id e n c e – in th e f

o rm o f a f f id a v its orotherw i s e - - thatSSA empl oy ees i nt ent i onal l yorw i l l ful l yr efus ed t o corr ecther i nform at i on and i s s ue a ne w car d. T her efor e, s um m aryj udgm entw as pr operon the P r i v a c yAc tc l a i m. S e e Or s a t t i v . N. J . S t a t e P o l i c e , 7 1 F . 3 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( “ [ A] p lain tiff c a n n o t re sis t a p ro p e rlysu p p o rte d m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t b ym e re ly r es t at i ng the al l egat i ons of hi s compl ai nt. . . . ”) ; R ei nbol d v. E ver s , 187 F. 3d 348, 362 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (s u m m a ryju d g m e n t p ro p e r o n P riv a c yA c t cla im w h e re p lain tiff f a iled to “br i ng forw ar d any evi dence thatthe [a gency ] act ed i n a mannerw hi ch w as ‘ i nt ent i onal o r w illf u l.’ ” ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso p rop erlyg ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t on A b u h o u ran ’s B i vens cl ai m . B i vens pr ovi des a ca us e of a ct i on agai ns tfede r al offi ci al s w ho have comm i t t ed cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thata B i vens act i on i s i m pr operw hen the cl ai m s as s ert ed ar e “e ncompass ed w i thi n the r emedi al s c h e me o f

th e P r i v a c yAc t . ” S e e Ch u n g v . U. S . De p ’ tJ u s t i c e , 3 3 3 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 4 ( D. C. C i r. 20 03 ). B ecause the Pri vacyA ctprovides a r em edy , A bu ho uran’s B i ven s cl ai m m ust f a il.6

A buhour an’ s fi nal cl ai m agai ns tthe fe der al defe ndant s w as br oughtunderthe FT C A . T he FT C A pr ovi des a ca us e of a ct i on agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es for “noncons t i tut i onal t or t s bas ed on the ‘ negl i gentorw r ongful actorom i s s i on of any e m p lo y e e o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t w h ile a c tin g w ith in th e s c o p e o f h is o f f ic e o r e m p lo ym e n t.’ 28 U . S. C . § 2679( b) ( 1) . ” C ouden v. D uffy , 446 F. 3d 483, 498 n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he U ni t ed St at es i s the onl ypr operdefe ndanti n an ac t i on br oughtunderthe FT C A . W oods v . U n ite d S ta te s , 7 2 0 F .2 d 1 4 5 1 , 1 4 5 2 n .1 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 6 (b )( 1 ). D i s tr i ctC our t s l ack s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, how ever , overcl ai m s bas ed on the p erf o rm an ce o f a d iscreti o n aryfu n cti o n . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 6 8 0 . T h is so-ca ll ed “d iscreti o n ary funct i on exce pt i on” s hi el ds the U ni t ed St at es fr om l i abi l i tybas ed on governm ent offi ci al s ’ conducti nvol vi ng j udgm entorchoi ce, s o l ong as the j udgm ent“i s the ki nd t hat the d i scr et i on aryfun ct i on excep t i on w as desi gn ed to shi el d. ” B erkovit z v. U nit ed S t at es, 4 8 6 U .S . 5 3 1 , 5 3 6 (1 9 8 8 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatA buhour an coul d nots ue the SSA or fe d era l of

ficials un d er the F T C A , an d that sh e h ad fa il ed to n am e the U n it ed S tat es. It f u rt h e r d e n ie d A b u h o u ra n le a v e to a m e n d h e r c o m p la in t to n a m e th e U n ite d S ta te s . W e re v ie w a D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f le a v e to a m e n d f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . W in e r F a m ilyT ru st v . Q u e e n , 5 0 3 F .3 d 3 1 9 , 3 3 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A lth o u g h lea v e to amend shoul d be “f

r eel ygi ven w hen j us t i ce s o r equi r es , ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 15( a) , a D i s tr i ct C o u rtm ayd en yleav e to a m en d w h ere itw o u ld ca u se u n d u e d elayo r pre jud ice, or w h ere7

a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f

u tile . W in e r F a m ily T ru s t, 5 0 3 F .3 d a t 3 3 0 -3 3 1 . T he D i s tr i ctC our trul ed thatA buhour an’ s bel at ed ef for tt o add the U ni t ed St at es as a def endanti n a s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntw oul d be fut i l e bec aus e the conduc tthat s he cha l l enged i s a “di s cr et i onaryfunct i on, ” and, ther efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tw oul d l ack j ur i s di ct i on overs uch a c l ai m agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe appl i cabi l i tyof the di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on. G otha v. U . S. , 115 F. 3d 176, 179 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tw as corr ecti n rul i ng thatthe cha l l enged c o n d u c ts a t i s f

i e d th e f i r s tp r o n g o f

th e d i s c r e t i o n a ry f

u n c t i o n e x c e p t i o n t e s t , n a m e l y, w h ethe r th e c h all en g ed co n d u ct i n v o lves fe d era l of ficials’ j u d g m en t or ch o ice. SS A ’s Pr ogr am O per at i ons M anual Sy s t em (“ PO M S”) r equi r es SSA empl oy ees t o be ce r t ai n t hat the per s on appl y i ng fora s oci al s ecur i tycar d i s the per s on he ors he cl ai m s t o be, and SSA empl oy ees m ayr equi r e addi t i onal evi dence i f theydoubtthe i dent i tyof the appl i cant . PO M S R M 00203. 200( A ) , ( E ) ( 1) ; PO M S R M 00203. 020( 1) . I n l i ghtof the chec ker ed hi s t oryas s oci at ed w i th A buhour an’ s s oci al s ecur i tynum ber , SSA empl oy ees w e re e n title d to re q u ir e a d d itio n a l p ro o f o f id e n tity f

ro m A b u h o u ra n if

th e ys o c h o s e . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatthe cha l l enged c onducti nvol ved f e d e ra l e m p lo y e e s ’ j u d g m e n t o r c h o ic e . T h e d iscreti o n aryfu n cti o n ex ce p ti o n , h o w ev er, do es n o t app lyto ev ery di s cr et i onarydeci s i on m ade bya fe der al empl oy ee. G otha, 115 F. 3d at179. T he exce pt i on appl i es onl yt o t hos e j udgm ent s thati nvol ve s oci al , economi c orpol i t i cal pol i cy8

d ec isi o n s tha t C o n g ress m ea n t t o sh iel d fro m jud ici al “se co n d -gu essin g ” thro u g h tort act i ons . B erkovi t z, 486 F. 3d at536- 537. A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o cons i der th e se c o n d p ro n g o f

th e d isc re tio n a ryf

u n c tio n e x c e p tio n , the e rro r d o e s n o t af f e c t it s c o n c lu sio n th a t am e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f u til e . T h e d e c isio n to a c c e p t o r re jec t ce rta in evi dence of i dent i tyl i es s quar el yw i thi n SSA offi ci al s ’ pol i cyj udgm entr egar di ng the sta n d a rd s re q u ire d to v e rif yid e n tityin th is c o u n try . T h e se a re th e k in d o f ju d g m e n ts i nvol vi ng publ i c pol i cydeci s i ons thatC ongr es s s oughtt o s hi el d. C om par e G otha, 115 F. 3d at181 ( N avy ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de a pr opers t ai rw ay , r ai l i ng and l i ght i ng ata N avy fac i l i tyw as nots ubj ectt o t he di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on beca us e i ti nvol ved a “mundane, admi ni s tr at i ve, gar den- var i ety , hous ekee pi ng pr obl em” farr emoved fr om t he N avy ’ s m i s s i on) w i th Sea- L and Serv. , I nc. v. U . S. A . , 919 F. 2d 888, 892 ( 3d C i r . 1990) (go v ern m en t’ s d ec isi o n to u se w ar sh ips c o n tai n ing asb esto s fe ll w ith in d iscreti o n ary funct i on exce pt i on beca us e i ti nvol ved ques t i ons of r es our ce a l l ocat i on and ef fec t i ve ut i l i zat i on of the nat i on’ s naval fl eet ) . T her efor e, the di s cr et i onaryfunct i on exce pt i on a p p lies , am e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u til e , an d th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g A b u h o u ra n le a v e to a m e n d . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o p ro p e rl yg ra n te d th e s ta te d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s . S ta te a c to rs c a n n o t b e s u e d u n d e r t h e P ri v a c yA c t, B iv e n s , o r t h e F T C A . S e e 5 U .S .C . § 551; B i vens , 403 U . S. 391 n. 4; 28 U . S. C . § 1346( b) ( 1) . A s A buhour an’ s al l egat i ons do nots t at e a c l ai m fora vi ol at i on of due pr oces s orof equa l pr ot ect i on, i tw oul d have be enA buhour an al l eges thatthe def endant s w ho vi ol at ed herr i ghtt o equal pr ot ect i on 1 w er e “f eder al empl oy ees . ” A m . C om pl . , ¶ 61. T o th e e x ten t th a t ap p e llan t as se rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in 2 fai l i ng t o cons true a l ett eras a mot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el , w e not e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdocketdoes nots how r ece i ptof s uch a l ett er . I n anyevent , appoi nt m entof couns el w oul d nothave be en w arr ant ed underT abr on v. G r ace , 6 F. 3d 147, 155- 56 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).

9 f u tile f o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt to g ra n t h e r l e a v e to a m e n d to s ta te a c la im u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983. A buhour an does notal l ege the deni al of a pr ot ect ed l i bertyorpr opertyi nt er es t , nor does the deni al of a dr i ver ’ s l i cens e i m pl i cat e the r i ghtt o i nt er s t at e tr avel . C f. M i l l erv. R eed, 176 F. 3d 1202, 1206 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( r i ghtt o dr i ve nota funda m ent al r i ghtthat i m pl i cat es the r i ghtt o i nt er s t at e tr avel ) . N ordoes s he al l ege a nyr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on by the sta te defe nd ants . 1 In su m , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d th e c laim s a g a in st th e sta te d e f e n d a n t s , g r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n tt o S S A a n d i t s e mp l o y e e s o n Ab u h o u r a n ’ s c l a i ms u n d e r t h e P ri v a c yA c t, B iv e n s , a n d th e F T C A , a n d d e n ie d A b u h o u ra n le a v e to a m e n d . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e o rd e rs o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . A p p ell an t’ s m o ti o n fo r ap p o intm en t of co u n sel an d h er m o ti o n to am en d are d e n ied . A p p e llee s’ m o tio n to f ile b rie f s a n d su p p lem e n tal a p p e n d ix u n d e r se a l is 2 g ra n te d .