2010 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 2-16-2010 

# Enriquet a Agc a oi li v

. R ich ard Th a ye r 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 . 09-2630

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_2010

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 2010 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 " E nrique t a Ag ca o i l i v

. R ich ar d Th a ye r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1890. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1890NOT 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. 09- 2630

___________ E N R IQ U E T A B . A G C A O IL I, A p p e llan t v. R IC H A R D T H A Y E R , S S A D istric t M a n a g e r; W I L L I A M ST A N L E Y , SSA L aw y er

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 . N . J . C i v. N o. 08- cv- 02715) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S . H o ch b erg

_______________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber8, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: February16, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM E n ri q u eta B . A g ca o il i app ea ls pro se f rom the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s i ng hercl ai m s agai ns tR i char d T hay erforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and2

e n t e r i n g s u mm a r yj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f Wi l l i a m S t a n l e y . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. A gcaoi l i w as i nj ur ed i n 1995, r et ai ned St anl ey( a l aw y er ) t o fi l e an appl i cat i on for Soci al Secur i tybenef

i t s on herbehal f, and r ece i ved a f ul l yfavor abl e dec i s i on fr om an A dm i nis trat i ve L aw Judg e i n 1 99 7. In 200 8, she fi l ed the com plai nt ati ssue here agai nst S ta n le ya n d T h a y e r, a D is tr ic t M a n a g e r o f th e S o c ia l S e c u ri ty A d m in is tr a tio n (“ S S A ” ). A g c a o ili ’s c o m p lain t is d if f icu lt t o f o llo w , b u t sh e a lleg e s th a t h e r S o c ial S e c u rityb e n e f its have be en i m pr oper l ycal cul at ed and thats he neve rr ece i ved ce r t ai n paym ent s thatthe SSA cl ai m s t o have made t o her . She al s o al l eges thatSt anl eycoer ced he ri nt o s i gni ng a f e e a g re e m e n t in 1 9 9 5 a n d th a t h e c o n sp ire d w ith th e S S A to re d u c e p a ym e n ts to h e r in o r d e rt o r e c e i v e h i s f

e e . Ag c a o i l i p u rp o r t e d t o b r i n g s u i tu n d e rth e F e d e r a l To r tCl a i ms A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1346( b) , the Soci al Secur i tyA ct , 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) , and the Pr i vacy A c t, 5 U .S .C . § 5 5 2 a (g )(5 ). S h e d e sc rib e d h e r “ c a u se s o f a c tio n ” a s “ F ra u d ; h a ra ss m e n t; cons pi r acy ; r et al i at i on, m ani pul at i on and fa l s i fi cat i on of r ecor ds ; obs truct i on of j us t i ce; di s cr i m i nat i on; i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of phy s i cal , m ent al / emot i onal di s tr es s . ” ( C om pl . at 2. ) T he onl yr el i ef s he s oughtw as the paym entof pr operSoci al Secur i tybenef i t s pl us i nt er es t , as w el l as damages forpai n and s uffe r i ng. S t anleyfi l ed a m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent, and T hay er fi l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss f o r la c k o f

su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o r in th e a ltern a tiv e f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t.W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over 1 th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s e n tr yo f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, s e e T o rr e tti v . M a in L in e H o s p s ., In c ., 580 F. 3d 168, 172 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , and di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, s ee U SX C orp. v. A dr i at i c I ns . C o. , 345 F. 3d 190, 198- 99 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e r evi ew the d e n ial o f lea v e to a m e n d a c o m p lain t f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n . S e e B jo rg u n g v . W h iteta il R es or t , L P, 550 F. 3d 263, 266 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e mayaff i r m on anygr ounds s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. See Torr ett i , 580 F. 3d at172. 3 Ag c a o i l i th e n s o u g h tl e a v e t o a me n d h e rc o mp l a i n t , wh i c h th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td e n i e d . By order ent ered A pri l 30 , 20 09 , the D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed A gcao i l i ’s cl ai m s agai nst T hay er and g rant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of S t anley . A gcao i l i app eal s. 1 II. W e w ill a f

f ir m s u b s ta n tia lly f

o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . R egar di ng T hay er , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yexpl ai ned thatA gcaoi l i al l eged no c onduct byT hay eri ndi vi dual l yand cons trued hercl ai m s as cl ai m s agai ns thi m i n hi s offi ci al capac i ty— i . e. , as cl ai m s agai nstthe U nit ed S t at es. W hethercon strued as cl ai m s agai nst T hay eri ndi vi dual l yoragai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es , how ever , theyar e barr ed as a mat t erof l aw . A s the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned, A gcaoi l i ’ s excl us i ve means of cha l l engi ng the c a lc u la tio n a n d p a ym e n t o f h e r S o c ia l S e c u ri ty b e n e f its lie s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). J udi ci al r evi ew underthats t atut e, how ever , “i s barr ed abs enta ‘ fi nal deci s i on’ bythe C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i ty . ” Fi t zger al d v. A pfel , 148 F. 3d 232, 234 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng M atthew s v. E l dr i dge, 424 U . S. 319, 328 ( 1976) ) . . T her e i s no s uch dec i s i on her e. A n A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge i s s ued a de ci s i on ful l yfavor abl e t o A gcaoi l i i n 1997, buts he i s notchal l engi ng thatdeci s i on ( and anys uch cha l l enge w oul d be unt i m el y , s eeA gcaoi l i ’ s compl ai ntr efe r ence s w hats he ca l l s “appe al s ” thats he fi l ed w i th the “Pay 2 C ent er ” i n 1996, w hi ch s he al l eges have “ s t ay ed atthe PayC ent er , w i thoutanyr es ul t . ” ( C om pl . at15. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tthor oughl ys etfor th the SSA ’ s admi ni s tr at i ve exhaus t i on r equi r ement s , and s ubm i s s i on of an “ appea l ” t o a “PayC ent er ” does not sati sfythem . S ee 2 0 C . F . R . § § 4 0 4 . 9 0 2 , 4 0 4 . 9 0 7 , 4 0 4 . 9 6 7 -68 & 4 0 4 . 9 8 1 . M o reo v er, A gcao i l i has no trequest ed an yi njunct i ve o r other r el i ef i n co nn ect i on w i th these purpor t ed appe al s . See Fi t zger al d, 148 F. 3d at235. I n addi t i on, T hay ers ubm i t t ed an unr ebutt ed dec l ar at i on fr om an SSA D i r ect ors t at i ng thatthe SSA has no r ecor d of A g c a o ili h a v in g f

ile d a n a d m in is tr a tiv e c la im re g a rd in g th e a lle g a tio n s in h e r c o m p la in t. (A p p e lle e s ’ A p p x . a t 7 3 -7 4 .) 4 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) ) . I ns t ead, s he cha l l enges the s ubs equentcal cul at i on and paym entof herSoci al Secur i tybenef i t s . A s the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned, A gcaoi l i m us tcompl et e the adm i nis trat i ve revi ew process befo re s eeking j ud i ci al revi ew of those i ssues. 2 A s the D i s tr i ctC our tfur therexpl ai ned, al l otherpot ent i al cl ai m s agai ns tT hay er ar e barr ed by42 U . S. C . § 405( h) . T hats t atut e pr ovi des that“[n] o act i on agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es , the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i ty , oranyoffi cerorempl oy ee ther eof s hal l be br oughtunders ect i on 133 or1346 of Ti t l e 28 t o r ecove ron anycl ai m ar i s i ng under ” Subchapt erI I of the Soci al Secur i tyA ct , w hi ch pr ovi des forthe paym entof Soci al Secur i tybenef

i t s . 42 U . S. C . § 405( h) . See W ei nber gerv. Sal fi , 422 U . S. 749, 760- 61 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; F a n n i n g v . Un i t e d S t a t e s , 3 4 6 F . 3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 2 - 9 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e S u p r e me C o u rt h a s b ro a d lyc o n stru e d th is p ro v isio n to b a r c laim s, e v e n if th e ym ig h t b e sa id to a rise u n d e r o th e r la w s a s w e ll, w h e n th e p lain tiff se e k s to re c o v e r S o c ial S e c u rityb e n e f its and the Soci al Secur i tyA ct“pr ovi des both the s t andi ng and the s ubs t ant i ve bas i s ” fort he cl ai m s . W ei nber ger , 422 U . S. at760- 61. See al s o Schw ei kerv. C hi l i cky , 487 U . S. 412, 42 4 (198 8) ( refusi ng t o im plycause o f act i on “for rem edies i n m on eydam ages ag ai nstT he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d nots peci fi cal l ydi s cus s A gcaoi l i ’ s cl ai m underthe Pr i vacy 3 A c t, bu t sh e f

a iled to sta te o n e . A g c a o ili a lleg e s th a t v a rio u s u n n a m e d in d iv id u a ls w ith in the SSA i m peded he reff or t s t o i nves t i gat e hercl ai m s , buts he does notal l ege thatthey w i thhel d anyr ecor ds fr om her . O n the contr ary , s he al l eges thats he w as abl e t o r evi ew herfi l e i n 2006. ( C om pl . at8. ) She al s o r eques t s no r el i ef i n thatr egar d. 5 [Soci al Secur i ty ] offi ci al s r es pons i bl e foruncons t i tut i onal conductthatl eads t o the w rongf ul deni al of b enef

i t s”) . In this case, becau se al l of A gcao i l i ’s cl ai m s agai nst T h a y e r “ a ris[ e ] u n d e r” th e S o c ial S e c u rityA c t, th e D istric t C o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to c o n s i d e rth e m. 3 W i th r egar d t o St anl ey , the D i s tr i ctC our tl i ber al l ycons trued A gcaoi l i ’ s al l egat i ons to sta te a n u m b e r o f

c laim s u n d e r sta te a n d /o r f e d e ra l law . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly c o n c l u d e d th a tNe w J e r s e y ’ s two - y e a rl i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d f o rp e r s o n a l i n

j u ryc l a i ms app l i es t o A gcao i l i ’s cl ai m s for haras sm ent, i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s, d is c ri m in a tio n , re ta lia tio n , c o n s p ir a c y , a n d o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e . See N . J . St at . 2A : 14- 2; R oa v. R oa , 955 A . 2d 930, 935 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2008) ( appl y i ng the tw o- y ear p erso n al i n

juryli m it ati o n s p eriod to claim s u n d er N ew Jerse y ’s an ti -discrim ination law ); see a lso C ito v. B ridg ew a ter T w p . P o li ce D ep ’t , 892 F. 2d 23, 25 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( N ew Je rse y ’s tw o -y e a r lim itatio n s p e rio d f o r p e rso n a l in

ju rya c tio n s a p p lies to c iv il righ ts cl ai m s under28 U . S. C . § 1983 and § 1985) . B eca us e ea ch of thes e cl ai m s ar os e outof St anl ey ’ s r epr es ent at i on of A gcaoi l i fr om 1995 t o 1997, w e agr ee w i th the C our tthat th e s e c la im s a re tim e -b a rr e d . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o corr ect l yconcl uded thatA gcaoi l i ’ s cl ai m forfr aud i s t i m e-6

b a rr e d . See N . J . St at . 2A : 14- 2 ( s i x- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od appl i es t o comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m s ) . A l though A gcaoi l i appea r s t o ar gue thathercl ai m di d notacc rue unt i l M ay 2006, w hen s he al l egedl yfi r s tl earned thatSt anl eyhad r ece i ved a f ee pa ym entfr om t he S S A , w e a g ree w ith the C o u rtthat A g ca o il i’ s ass erti o n is co n tr ad ict ed b ythe re co rd. In thi s cas e, A gcaoi l i al l eges thats he s i gned a f ee a gr eementw i th St anl eyi n 1995, appar ent l yunderdur es s , and thatSt anl eycol l ect ed $2, 792. 50 t ow ar d the fe e i n 1997. She a t t a c h e d t o h e rc o mp l a i n twh a ta p p e a r s t o b e a 2 0 0 6 p r i n t - o u to f h e r1 9 9 7 F o r m S S A1 0 9 0 S o c ial S e c u rityS tate m e n t sh o w in g th a t th e S S A n o tifie d h e r o f its p a ym e n t to St anl eyi n 1997. I n addi t i on, St anl eys ubm i t t ed tw o 1997 l ett er s fr om the SSA not i fy i ng Ag c a o i l i th a ti th a d wi th h e l d $ 2 , 7 9 2 . 5 0 t o p a yS t a n l e y( Ap p e l l e e s ’ Ap p x . a t1 3 2 - 4 0 ) , t wo 1997 l ett er s fr om St anl eyhi m s el f t o A gcaoi l i expl ai ni ng hi s r ece i ptof the fe e ( i d. at142- 4 3 , 1 4 8 ), an d a 1 9 9 7 let ter fro m A g ca o il i ack n o w ledg ing rec eipt o f o n e o f th o se lett ers ( i d. at145- 46) . A gcaoi l i does notdi s put e anyof thi s evi dence , and i tcl ear l ys how s that s he w as aw ar e of a l l m at er i al fac t s r el evantt o herfr aud cl ai m overt en y ear s befor e fi l i ng h e r c o m p la in t. W e al so agree t hat A gcao i l i ’s cl ai m for “m anipul at i on and fal si fi cat i on of records” is tim e -b a rre d . A g c a o ili a p p e a rs to a lleg e th a t th e F e e A g re e m e n t w a s f a lsif ied b e c a u se it bear s the dat e of D ece m ber13, 1995 ( the dat e on w hi ch i tw as exec ut ed) , r atherthan the “ac ci dentdat e. ” The D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ynot ed thatw hi l e for geryi s a cr i m e under N ew Jerse ylaw , N . J. S tat . 2 C :21 -1, th ere is no ex p ress p ri v ate righ t of ac ti o n fo r fo rge ryunderN ew J er s eyl aw . I n anyevent , as s um i ng ar guendo thats uch a c aus e of a ct i on exi s t s , A gcaoi l i ’ s cl ai m i s nonethel es s t i m e- barr ed, r egar dl es s w hetherthe tw o- y earor s ix -ye a r l im ita tio n s p e ri o d a p p lie s . F in a lly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g A g c a o ili lea v e to am end . A gcao i l i ’s propo sed am end ed co m plai nt i ncluded no new m at eri al al l egati on s, an d so u g h t on lyto ad d as d ef en d an ts va ri o u s em p loy ee s o f th e S S A , as w ell as T rea su ry Secr et aryT i m othyG ei thner . T he pr opos ed amended compl ai ntdoes nots t at e any cog nizabl e cl ai m s agai nstthese i nd i vidual s. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rt . A g ca o il i’ s m ot i ons t o s t aythi s appea l , “pr ecl ude” St anl ey ’ s couns el , “s epar at e appe l l ees ” and

“ a m e n d to c ri m in a l a c tio n s ” a re d e n ie d .

7