Court Opinion

ID: 9955107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:01:05.813699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.218338
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1285     Document: 010111022829      Date Filed: 03/27/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        March 27, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  CONRAD CZAJKOWSKI,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 23-1285
                                                 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00900-LTB-SBP)
  COMMISSIONER, SSA,                                          (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 23-1285    Document: 010111022829         Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 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.

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

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

                                           4