KIM v. USA

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 25-2010
Filed: January 22, 2026
________________________________________
)
GWANJUN KIM, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
THE UNITED STATES, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
________________________________________ 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff GwanJun Kim, proceeding pro se, filed this action against the Administrative
Law Judge that denied his claim for additional Social Security benefits. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
argues that this official has engaged in fraud by denying Plaintiff certain benefits, in addition to
violating a Michigan civil rights statute. Id. at 3–5. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5.
Because Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the court conducted its evaluation
of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Given the court could not identify a claim
within its jurisdiction, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See generally ECF No. 9. As the court
explained, it lacks jurisdiction to hear claims for social security benefits because Congress vested
that jurisdiction in the district courts. Id. at 2. The court also explained that it lacks jurisdiction
over claims sounding in tort, claims arising under state law, and claims against individuals that
Plaintiff appeared to assert in the complaint. Id. at 2–3.
Plaintiff responded quickly to the show cause order. ECF No. 10. According to Plaintiff,
this court has jurisdiction because the Administrative Law Judge committed an intentional tort in
denying his claim. Id. at 1–2. But this response only confirms that this court lacks jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), which limits jurisdiction to claims “not sounding in tort.” Thus,
this court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims.
Because the court is dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it
considers whether transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Section 1631 provides that, if
the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, it “shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer
such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been
brought at the time it was filed or noticed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, Plaintiff indicated that he
would like his case transferred if this court lacks jurisdiction, but he did not identify the court to
Case 1:25-cv-02010-EHM Document 12 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
which transfer would be appropriate. See ECF No. 10 at 2–3. Because Plaintiff appears to reside
in the Eastern District of Michigan,1 the court assumes that is the district court to which Plaintiff
would like the complaint transferred.
Transfer of the complaint in this case is inappropriate under Section 1631 because
Plaintiff could not have filed this action before the Eastern District of Michigan on the date he
filed here. Plaintiff insists this is a tort claim, which means that, to proceed in district court, he
would have to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). But Plaintiff could not have
filed his tort claim in district court on the date he filed here for at least two reasons, one of which
is jurisdictional and incurable.
First, although the FTCA provides a waiver of sovereign immunity for certain tort claims,
that waiver does not extend to all tort claims. The FTCA’s waiver of immunity “shall not apply
to . . . [a]ny claim arising out of . . . misrepresentation [or] deceit.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
Plaintiff alleges that the denial of his social security benefits constituted “fraud” and a “lie.”
ECF No. 1 at 3, 5. These allegations clearly allege misrepresentation or deceit, meaning that
Plaintiff could not bring his complaint under the FTCA. See, e.g., Sutton v. U.S. Small Bus.
Admin., 92 F. App’x 112, 124 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that the United States is immune to fraud
claims under the FTCA). Because the United States is immune to Plaintiff’s fraud claims, he
could not have filed them in district court. This precludes transfer under Section 1631.
Second, putting aside the immunity issue, the FTCA also requires Plaintiff to file an
administrative claim prior to bringing an action in district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). In the
Sixth Circuit, which includes the Michigan district courts, this is a mandatory claims processing
rule. Bray v. Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc., 97 F.4th 403, 416–18 (6th Cir. 2024). Here,
Plaintiff has provided no evidence that he has filed any administrative claim under the FTCA,
meaning that he could not have filed his tort claim in district court at the time he filed the
complaint here, making transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 inappropriate.
Even though Plaintiff insists that his claim is for a tort, it appears obvious that he is
simply dissatisfied with the Administrative Law Judge’s determination of his claim. Given the
court’s leniency in reviewing pro se claims, the court considers whether it would be proper to
transfer this case to the district court as an appeal on the merits regarding the denial of his social
security claim. It is not. Assuming Plaintiff could have sought review of the Administrative
Law Judge’s decision directly in district court,2 he would have had to file that case within sixty
days of the final decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Given the decision Plaintiff complains of is dated
1 According to the complaint, Plaintiff resides in Rochester, Michigan. ECF No. 1 at 5. That
city is in Oakland County, which is in the Eastern District of Michigan.
2 There are typically four steps in the administrative review process for disputed disability
claims. Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104, 107 (1984). Plaintiff must exhaust these before seeking
district court review, and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is only step three. Id.
The next step in the process would be for Plaintiff to take an appeal to the Department of Health
and Human Services’ Appeals Council. Id. It does not appear that Plaintiff has taken an appeal
to the Appeals Council, meaning that he has not exhausted the administrative process. This
renders transfer inappropriate.
Case 1:25-cv-02010-EHM Document 12 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
August 27, 2024, the window for district court review has long since closed. Therefore, transfer
under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is inappropriate.
In the end, this court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case
and declines to transfer it to district court. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order
limits Plaintiff’s ability to file a case in another court if he chooses. It will be up to that court to
determine for itself whether it has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims.
For these reasons, the court DISMISSES the complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ Edward H. Meyers
Edward H. Meyers
Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02010-EHM Document 12 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 3