Court Opinion

ID: 9950143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 15:01:19.079421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:51.683126
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3185      Document: 010111014666          Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                                March 13, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                               Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                   Clerk of Court
  ARTHUR WILLIAMS, JR.,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                              No. 23-3185
                                                        (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02368-EFM)
  COMMISSIONER, SSA,                                               (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Arthur Williams, Jr., appearing pro se, sued the Commissioner of the Social Security

 Administration (“Commissioner”) in the District of Kansas for monetary damages

 following reductions in his supplemental security income (“SSI”) payments. The lawsuit

 was dismissed as a matter of law after the Social Security Commission (the “Commission”)

 established that it had recently paid Williams a lump sum to remedy several monthly SSI

 payments allegedly owed to him.

        *
          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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except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: 23-3185       Document: 010111014666          Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 2

          Williams appeals that dismissal, arguing that the district court erred by not allowing

 him to pursue his claims for monetary damages for the alleged constitutional violations

 committed by the Commissioner and other officials when they reduced his SSI payments.

 He also argues the dismissal was improperly motivated by the bias of a newly reassigned

 judge.

          Exercising jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

                                                I

          Williams filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in

 September 2022, alleging that he was improperly denied SSI payments based on a change

 in his income status. He claimed that several monthly SSI payments were owed to him and

 that he was not provided proper notice that his payments would be reduced. He further

 alleged that the disruption of his monthly SSI payments caused violations under the Fourth,

 Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As a remedy, he

 sought “2.9 million [dollars] in compensatory and punitive damages.” ROA at 9.

          In January 2023, the district court denied the Commissioner’s initial motion to

 dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It determined

 that Williams raised a viable procedural due process challenge by alleging that the

 Commissioner had altered his SSI payments without notice or an opportunity to challenge

 that decision.

          After an investigation, the Commission admitted that it had failed to provide

 Williams notice of this change in benefits. It then issued payment to Williams by giving

 him a lump sum of $8,588.70 for the SSI benefits owed to him for June 2022 to April 2023.

                                                2
Appellate Case: 23-3185      Document: 010111014666         Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 3

 Williams does not challenge the amount of this lump sum payment. Around the same time,

 the Commission also informed Williams that going forward it would cease paying him

 monthly SSI benefits. This cessation determination was based on his change in income

 status, and he was notified that he had 60 days to appeal that decision. Williams did not

 contest the cessation determination.

        After making the lump sum payment to Williams for the payments owed for June

 2022 to April 2023, the Commissioner filed a second motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)

 in April 2023, arguing that the district court now lacked subject matter jurisdiction because

 the case was moot. The Commissioner explained that Williams was made whole by the

 $8,588.70 lump sum payment for any past benefits owed and that he had received proper

 notice of the change to his future SSI payments. Thus, with no dispute remaining over the

 past or future SSI payments to be paid to Williams, the Commissioner argued that the case

 should be dismissed.

        The district court agreed with the Commissioner and the case was dismissed on

 October 4, 2023. The case had changed judges at this point following a reassignment.

 When the second motion to dismiss was filed, the case had been reassigned.

        Williams sought reconsideration of the decision and alleged the reassigned judge’s

 ruling was tainted by bias. The district court denied reconsideration on the merits and

 rejected the bias allegation, pointing out that Williams had failed to provide an affidavit in

 support of his claims of bias.

        Williams appeals the dismissal.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-3185      Document: 010111014666         Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 4

                                               II

        We have jurisdiction over this final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

        Williams raises two arguments: (1) he should be allowed to pursue compensatory

 and punitive damages for the alleged constitutional violations committed by the

 Commissioner and other officials when they cut off his SSI payments; and (2) bias requires

 that the case be remanded and reassigned to the first district judge who handled his case,

 before it was reassigned.

        “We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction[,]” and in

 doing so, we “review any findings of jurisdictional facts for clear error.” Baker v. USD 229

 Blue Valley, 979 F.3d 866, 871 (10th Cir. 2020). On the claim of bias and the district court’s

 alleged error in declining to recuse, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Kellogg v.

 Watts Guerra LLP, 41 F.4th 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 2022). Because Williams is acting pro

 se, we construe his filings liberally, but do not act as his advocate. Garrett v. Selby Connor

 Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

                                               A

        Williams notably disclaims any procedural due process arguments regarding past or

 future SSI payments. He does not dispute that in April 2023, he was paid a lump sum for

 the benefits owed to him for June 2022 to April 2023. He also does not challenge that he

 was provided sufficient notice that his future SSI benefits would be reduced based on a

 change in his income status.

        Instead, Williams appeals only his inability to pursue monetary damages for the

 alleged constitutional violations committed by the Commissioner and other officials when

                                               4
Appellate Case: 23-3185     Document: 010111014666         Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 5

 they decreased his SSI benefit payments. He states that “[t]he defendants tried to make

 [this case] an administrative issue when it is not,” Opening Br. at 2, and that he has been

 “pushed into an administrative argument rather than [a] constitutional argument[.]” Id.

 Seeking monetary damages for these alleged constitutional violations, he argues on appeal

 that it was “wrong” to ignore his request for “compensatory and punitive damages” against

 the Commissioner. Id.

        The United States Supreme Court has foreclosed claims for monetary damages in

 the form of compensatory and punitive damages for alleged constitutional violations

 arising out of the denial or reduction of Social Security payments. As the district court

 recognized, the Social Security Act “makes no provision for remedies in money damages

 against officials responsible for unconstitutional conduct that leads to the wrongful denial

 of benefits.” Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 424 (1988); see also Big Cats of Serenity

 Springs, Inc. v. Rhodes, 843 F.3d 853, 859–60 (10th Cir. 2016) (discussing Chilicky and

 how it forecloses a Bivens remedy for the denial or reduction of Social Security payments).

        Thus, although Williams condemns the dramatic unfairness and inequality in the

 reduction of his benefits, we have no discretion to consider these factors. “The Social

 Security Act does not deal with the concept of ‘equality’ or with the guarantee of ‘civil

 rights,’” Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rts. Org., 441 U.S. 600, 621 (1979), and we must

 apply the Supreme Court’s controlling decision in Chilicky, 487 U.S. at 424. Simply put,

 compensatory and punitive damages are unavailable forms of relief for the denial or

 reduction of Social Security payments. See Lombardi v. Small Bus. Admin., 889 F.2d 959,

                                              5
Appellate Case: 23-3185       Document: 010111014666          Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 6

 961–62 (10th Cir. 1989) (explaining that Chilicky forecloses “intrusion by the Courts into

 the statutory scheme established by Congress” under the Social Security Act).

        In conclusion, “[b]ecause the relief sought” by Williams “is unavailable as a matter

 of law,” his claims for compensatory and punitive damages were properly dismissed.

 Chilicky, 487 U.S. at 429.

                                                B

        Williams also claims the newly assigned district judge was biased in favor of the

 Commissioner. When Williams filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of his case,

 however, the newly assigned district judge explained that the original judge assigned was

 “a senior judge” who “carries a reduced caseload. Reassignment occurred because he

 already had a large caseload, and the case involves a civil constitutional question.” ROA

 at 227–28. The newly assigned judge further explained that Williams had failed to submit

 an affidavit, as is required, to substantiate the basis for his allegation of bias or in any way

 “identify any facts showing bias, prejudice, or lack of impartiality.” Id. at 228.

        On appeal, Williams still offers no factual basis for the alleged bias, and

 “conclusions, rumors, beliefs, and opinions are not sufficient to form a basis for

 disqualification” of a district judge. Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987).

 In fact, we have advised that a district judge owes “a duty not to recuse himself [or herself]

 on unsupported speculation.” Willner v. Univ. of Kansas, 848 F.2d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir.

 1988) (citing Hinman, 831 F.2d at 939–40).

        Finally, as we explained above, the district court properly dismissed Williams’ case

 as a matter of law by applying controlling Supreme Court authority. In doing so, the district

                                                6
Appellate Case: 23-3185     Document: 010111014666        Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 7

 court exercised no discretion and mechanically applied controlling law. As a result, bias

 played no possible role in the dismissal of Williams’ claims.

                                             III

       The dismissal is AFFIRMED.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Richard E.N. Federico
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             7