Strable v. United States

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not
citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
04-5109
DONALD J. STRABLE,
Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: December 7, 2004
__________________________
Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION
Donald J. Strable appeals from the decision of the Court of Federal Claims
dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Strable v. United States,
No. 03-2831C (Fed. Cl. May 20, 2004). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Strable applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of
the Social Security Act in August 2000. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied the
application, finding that Strable had an income level that exceeded the maximum federal
benefit rate for eligibility. Strable filed a request for review of the ALJ’s decision, which
the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied in March 2003. He next
sought relief in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. In
September 2003, United States Magistrate Judge William Catoe determined that the
ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and upheld that decision. Strable
then filed a motion to replace the magistrate judge, alleging bias. Magistrate Judge
Catoe denied the motion as unsubstantiated.
In December 2003, Strable filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal
Claims, arguing that the district court’s decision should be overturned. The government
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined
that it lacked jurisdiction over Strable’s underlying claim for Social Security benefits and
granted the government’s motion. Strable timely appealed to this court; we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We review legal determinations de novo, including the dismissal of a complaint
by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Venture Coal
Sales Co. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1102, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
On appeal, Strable argues that the Court of Federal Claims erred by dismissing
his case for lack of jurisdiction. Ultimately, it appears that he is seeking increased
Social Security benefits. However, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that an action seeking
review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security “shall be brought in
the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides,
04-5109 2
or has his principal place of business . . . .” Strable seems to have taken that action and
cannot continue to litigate in the Court of Federal Claims.
Courts have consistently held that jurisdiction over Social Security cases resides
exclusively in the federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims. Weinberger v.
Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767 (1975); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471
(Fed. Cir. 1990). The Court of Federal Claims was thus correct to conclude that it
lacked jurisdiction to consider either the administrative determinations or the federal
district court’s decision. Strable’s allegations that the federal magistrate judge violated
his Constitutional rights do not confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims.
Furthermore, Strable’s arguments regarding alleged treaty violations are not persuasive
and do not alter the operation of § 405(g) limiting jurisdiction over Social Security cases
to the federal district courts. We therefore conclude that the court properly dismissed
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we accordingly affirm.
04-5109 3