Van Williams v. Social Security Admin. , 152 F. App'x 153 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-20-2005
Williams v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4288
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Williams v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 371.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/371
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4288
________________
AMIR VAN WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN., ET AL.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-02152 )
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 14, 2005
Before: ALITO, SMITH AND COWEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: October 20, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Amir Van Williams appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We will affirm.
Williams filed a claim with the Social Security Administration (“the agency”) for
widower’s disability insurance benefits, and he requested an administrative hearing. A
hearing was scheduled for September 11, 2003 before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). Williams appeared for the hearing but requested a continuance. The ALJ
granted the request and rescheduled the hearing for December 3, 2003, specifically
advising Williams that if he failed to appear for the rescheduled hearing, his hearing
request would be dismissed without further notice.
On December 8, 2003, the ALJ issued an order dismissing the hearing request.
The order noted that Williams failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing despite having
been advised personally of the time and place of the hearing and of the possibility of
dismissal if he failed to attend, and the ALJ found that Williams had shown no good
cause for failing to appear. Williams filed a request for review by the Appeals Council,
but the Appeals Council denied his request on March 19, 2004.
Williams then filed his complaint in District Court. The agency Commissioner
moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the
dismissal of Williams’s hearing request did not constitute a “final decision” for purposes
of judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Williams filed a motion to “withdraw and
remand” the matter to the agency. After receiving supplemental submissions by the
parties, the District Court initially granted Williams’s motion to remand his claim. The
2
Commissioner filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, asserting that, because the
District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, it was without authority
to grant Williams’s motion to remand the proceedings. Williams filed a reply. The
District Court granted the Commissioner’s motion and dismissed Williams’s complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Williams appeals. We have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the dismissal of Williams’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is plenary. Tobak v. Apfel, 195 F.3d 183, 185 (3d Cir. 1999).
The District Court’s jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act
is provided by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which states, in part, that an “individual, after any final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing . . . may obtain a
review of such decision by a civil action.” Without a “final decision,” the District Court
has no jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s determination. Fitzgerald v. Apfel, 148
F.3d 232, 234 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 (1976)). In
this case, the ALJ dismissed Williams’s hearing request after Williams failed to appear at
the rescheduled hearing and showed no good cause for his failure to attend. No hearing
was conducted, and no final decision has been made. See Hoye v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 990(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section
405(g) where Social Security claimant, by refusing to attend scheduled ALJ hearing,
waived his opportunity for hearing and failed to exhaust administrative remedies upon
3
which judicial review depends).
As discussed by the District Court, we recognize that colorable claims of
constitutional violations confer federal court jurisdiction despite lack of a final decision.
See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. at 108-09; Bacon v. Sullivan, 969 F.2d 1517, 1521-22
(3d Cir. 1992). On this point, Williams alleged, among other things, that the consulting
physician’s examination report had a discriminatory effect because it stated that Williams
had emotional problems. Williams asserted that the agency has a racist mind set that
negatively affected the outcome of his claim. However, for essentially the same reasons
given by the District Court, we conclude that Williams’s unsupported suppositions that
the agency had a racially-biased agenda do not create a constitutional issue that would
confer federal court jurisdiction over this matter. Williams presented no evidence that the
agency dismissed his hearing request for reasons other than those applied to all claimants
who fail to attend their hearings.1
We have considered all of Williams’s arguments and find them to be without
1
Williams also alleged that the consulting physician violated his constitutional rights
by failing to advise him that his statements during the examination could be used against
him in the administrative proceedings. In support, Williams cites Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966). The right protected under the Fifth Amendment is the right not to
be compelled to be a witness against oneself in a criminal prosecution. We observe that
the agency proceedings on Williams’s claim for widower’s disability insurance benefits
are non-criminal proceedings. Moreover, whatever statements he made during the
examination did not have any substantive impact on his claim for benefits, because the
matter was dismissed before the agency could render a final decision. We discern no
constitutional claim here.
4
merit. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Williams’s motion for the appointment
of counsel is denied.