UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CONRAD CZAJKOWSKI, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SSA, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 23-1285 

(D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00900-LTB-SBP) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Conrad Czajkowski, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s 

sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for review of a Social Security Administration 

(“SSA”) decision. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 27, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 1
2 

I. BACKGROUND 

In April 2023, Czajkowski filed a complaint for review of a Social Security 

disability benefits decision with the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado. His initial complaint did not utilize the district court’s approved complaint 

form and his second amended complaint was incomplete. In June 2023, the court 

directed Czajkowski to cure the filing deficiencies, reminded him that he needed to 

provide a copy of the SSA’s final decision regarding his claim, and ordered him to 

show cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. Czajkowski filed a third amended complaint but did not attach a copy of 

the final agency decision. He did not respond to the show-cause order. 

Czajkowski alleged that he was approved to receive $797 per month in Social 

Security disability insurance benefits beginning in June 2022. The first benefits 

payment was deposited in his bank account on June 8, 2022. However, on July 13, 

2022, he attempted to access the second benefits payment and found that it had not 

been deposited. He called an SSA office in Washington, D.C. about the missing 

payment and was informed that it should have been deposited. 

Later that day, Czajkowski was arrested for a parole violation, and he has been 

detained since that time. Czajkowski asserts that he has not violated any condition of 

his parole or been convicted of a crime that would result in parole revocation. He has 

written to multiple SSA offices, inquiring about the missing disability insurance 

benefits, with no response. He has not received a decision from the SSA suspending 

or terminating his benefits. 

Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 2
3 

For relief, Czajkowski asked the district court to order the SSA Commissioner 

to pay him disability insurance benefits dating back to July 2022. The district court 

dismissed without prejudice Czajkowski’s third amended complaint, explaining that 

without a final agency decision it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). Czajkowski timely appealed. 

II. DISCUSSION 

“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 

court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). We review de novo the 

district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Mukantagara v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 67 F.4th 1113, 1115 (10th Cir. 2023). Czajkowski 

represents himself, so we construe his filings liberally. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 

1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Under the Social Security Act, federal district courts have jurisdiction to 

review “any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a 

hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). “At the same time, Congress made 

clear that review would be available only ‘as herein provided’—that is, only under 

the terms of § 405(g).” Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1772 (2019) (quoting 

42 U.S.C. § 405(h)). The applicable regulations provide that the SSA makes a final 

decision only after a disability claimant has completed four steps: (1) initial 

determination; (2) reconsideration; (3) a hearing before an administrative law judge; 

and (4) a request for review by the Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). 

Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 3
4 

Here, the district court informed Czajkowski of the necessity of a final agency 

decision and gave him ample opportunity to provide one. On appeal, Czajkowski 

asserts that he has “[n]ever received any type of decision” from the SSA “for ceasing 

[his] payments after only [one] month of receiving them.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2. 

He further asserts that the SSA “has not sent [him] any information regarding why 

[his] payments ceased before [he] was arrested.” Id. at 3 (capitalization and 

emphasis omitted). It is therefore undisputed that Czajkowski does not have a “final 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Moreover, it 

seems that Czajkowski has not completed the steps required for him to obtain a final 

decision from the SSA. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). Consequently, we conclude 

the district court correctly dismissed Czajkowski’s amended complaint for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. 

III. CONCLUSION 

We affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Czajkowski’s amended 

complaint. We grant his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs 

and fees. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 23-1285 Document: 010111022829 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 4