Garrett v. Social Security Administation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ROLAND GARRETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 25-13833-MJJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOUN, D.J.
Plaintiff Roland Garrett, who is representing himself, has filed a civil complaint against
the United States Social Security Administration (“SSA”) in which he alleges that the agency
wrongfully terminated his Social Security benefits. Garrett has also filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and motion for injunctive relief. For the reasons stated below, the
Court will grant the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny in part the motion for
injunctive relief and order that the complaint and emergency motion be transmitted to the SSA.
The Court will also dismiss any claims for damages.
I. 	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Upon review of Garrett’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
GRANTS the same.
II. 	REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT
Because Garrett is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, his complaint is
subject to a preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This statute authorizes federal
courts to dismiss actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees if the
Case 1:25-cv-13833-MJJ Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 4

2
action is malicious, frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes Garrett’s complaint
because he is proceeding pro se.
A. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff filed his complaint on the preprinted Pro Se 2 form (Complaint and Request for
Injunction). [Doc. No. 1]. Plaintiff’s statement of his claim consists of the following:
On 12-23-2025, defendant schedule a termination of all the plaintiff state and
federal services in Massachusetts for January 1, 2026, without warning, or notice.
[Id. at ¶ III(A)]. Plaintiff explains that he “can’t pay rent, [and he is] facing eviction.” [Id. at ¶ IV
(irreparable injury)]. In his prayer for relief, Garrett requests $”50,000.00.” [Id. at ¶ V (relief)].
On his civil cover sheet, Garrett states that he is “trying to stop SSA from terminating [his]
services.” [Doc. No. 1-2].
B. 	Sovereign Immunity of the United States
The United States—including its agencies—has sovereign immunity from suit unless
such immunity has been waived. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). A federal
agency’s waiver of immunity must be “unequivocally expressed” and will be strictly construed
in favor of immunity. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-34 (1992) (quoting
Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 95 (1990)).
The Social Security Act contains a very narrow waiver of sovereign immunity of the
SSA. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), (h). Under 42. U.S.C. § 405(g) (“§ 405(g)”), an individual may
seek judicial review of a “final decision” of the Commissioner of the SSA Administration. See
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A “final decision” arises when (1) the Appeals Council of the SSA denies an
individual request for further review of the decision of the administrative law judge; or (2) the
Case 1:25-cv-13833-MJJ Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Appeals Council does decide to review the individuals claims and issues its decision. See 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.900(a), 404.981; see also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07 (2000). Thereafter,
a civil action for judicial review of the final decision must be initiated within 60 days of the final
decision. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 422.210.1
Here, it is unclear whether Garrett has exhausted his administrative remedies with regard
to the termination of the benefits he now seeks. Nonetheless, because the SSA can provide this
information, the Court will order the Clerk to transmit this action to the SSA pursuant to Rule 3
of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
C. 	Claims for Damages
To the extent that Garrett seeks relief other than the benefits allegedly due to him, the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Section § 405(g) does not
contain a damages remedy, and it is the exclusive method “to recover on any claim arising
under” the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“§ 405(h)”) (“No action against the United
States, the Commissioner of Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought
under section 1331 or 1346 of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.”).
Where a plaintiff challenges any misconduct related to the denial of Social Security benefits, the
plaintiff’s remedy is limited to the benefits (if any) that were wrongly denied. See, e.g.,
Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 424-25 (1988) (holding that the Social Security Act does
not contain a “remedy in damages for emotional distress or for other hardships suffered” from
mishandling of claim, and refusing to create Bivens remedy precludes a cause of action for
1 Though this sixty-day limit is non-jurisdictional, it is a condition on the waiver of sovereign
immunity and, thus, is strictly construed. See Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479
(1986). The limitations period, however, is subject to equitable tolling if the requirements of that
doctrine are satisfied. See id. at 479–80.
Case 1:25-cv-13833-MJJ Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 4

4
money damages for unconstitutional conduct that led to the wrongful denial of benefits);
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-61 (1975) (§ 405(h) bars federal-question jurisdiction of
any claim arising under Social Security Act except pursuant to § 405(g)); Toth v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 705 Fed. App’x 138 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (§ 405(h) precludes claim under the
Federal Tort Claims Act for the SSA’s alleged wrongful denial of benefits).
III. 	CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders:
1. 	The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
2. 	The emergency motion is DENIED in part as to the request for a temporary
restraining order. The request for preliminary injunction remains under advisement and on or
before January 14, 2026, Defendant must respond to Garrett’s request for preliminary injunction.
3. 	The Clerk shall transmit the complaint and emergency motion to the SSA
pursuant to Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). Garrett is not required to serve a summons and complaint. See Rule 3 of the
Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions.
4. 	Any claims for monetary damages are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 31, 2025 	/s/ Myong J. Joun
MYONG J. JOUN
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13833-MJJ Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 4