Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSEPH LEE JONES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
v. )
) No. 25-4031-JWL
FRANK BISIGNANO,1 )
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the Commissioner of Social Security (Doc. 31) to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), and arguably also on the Motion of
Plaintiff for Mandamus. (Doc. 11).
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court pursuant to Title II of the Social Security
Act, Old Age and Survivors Benefits, for a disabled dependent adult, claiming the Social
Security Administration (SSA) was violating his due process rights by failing to provide
an accounting of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits paid, and the amounts due,
the dates due, and the amounts and dates paid. (Doc 1, p.3). He appeared to allege no
1 On May 7, 2025, Mr. Bisignano was sworn in as Commissioner of Social Security. In
accordance with Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Bisignano is
substituted for Acting Commissioner Lee Dudek as the defendant. Pursuant to the last
sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), no further action is necessary.
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 13

2
offset, or recoupment could be made by the agency because of his filing bankruptcy in
2020 and because, although he had been in jail, he had not been convicted of a crime. Id.
He also suggested that he had erroneously not received COVID stimulus payments
somehow because of the SSA’s alleged errors.
I. Background
The Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for
Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 10) to which the pro se Plaintiff responded with a Motion
for Mandamus and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 11), a Response (Doc. 12), an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 13), and a Motion for and in support of Preliminary Injunction. (Doc.
14). The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, noting that
suits against the SSA, its officers, or employees relating to Federal Old-
Age, Survivors, or Disability Insurance Benefits may only be brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and may not be brought pursuant to federal
question jurisdiction, or against the United States as a defendant.
(Doc. 15, p.2). The court went on to conclude, “42 U.S.C. 405(g) does not provide for
Preliminary Injunction against the SSA, and Plaintiff does not point to any authority for
Preliminary Injunction within 42 U.S.C. Chapter 7, Subchapter 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED.” Id.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claimed jurisdiction based upon 5th
Amendment Equal Protection, 6th Amendment Due Process, Mandamus, and a
Declaratory Action. (Doc. 13, p.3). In the claims portion of his Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges persons receiving Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act are provided records of payments
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 13

3
and offsets and Plaintiff is due his records because he perceives his back payments did
not go back to 1993. Id. In the Amended Complaint Plaintiff acknowledges “a
substantially equivalent complaint was previously filed in this court as case number 25-
4023 [sic (20-4023-JWB)] and assigned to the Honorable Judge Brooms [sic].” Id. p.5.
Thereafter, the court filed a Scheduling Order on July 9, 2025 (Doc. 21) in which
it explained that in Case Number 20-4023-JWB the court entered judgment on January 4,
2021 remanding the case to the SSA for further proceedings and on remand (based on
information provided by the Commissioner in the earlier case), Plaintiff was granted
Adult CDB (Child Disability Benefits) on July 6, 2023. (Case No. 20-4023-JWB, Doc.
60). The court noted in its Scheduling Order that in his Amended Complaint Plaintiff
apparently attempted to change the nature of this suit from judicial review of a decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security to a Constitutional Due Process and Equal
Protection claim. (Doc. 21, pp.2-3). However, the court found
it is also apparent that the claims in the Complaint (Doc. 1) and in the
Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) are premised on allegations the SSA did not
properly compute Plaintiff’s past due benefits when it granted his claim for
benefits in July 2023 and has refused to provide an accounting of the
payments made. Thus, it is clear that both the Complaint and the Amended
Complaint in this case are seeking judicial review of a decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security granting CDB, apparently in July 2023.
Therefore, determination of the issues presented here rests on the
circumstances of that award.
Id. p.3.
Because knowing the circumstances of the award of CDB would be necessary to
decide whether the Amended Complaint should be dismissed or whether judicial review
should continue, the court stayed all deadlines in the case, ordered the Commissioner to
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 3 of 13

4
“file with the court no later than July 31, 2025, the Notice of Decision granting Plaintiff’s
claim for CDB (apparently issued July 6, 2023) and the Notice of Award issued
thereafter,” and to file any Social Security “final decision issued regarding Plaintiff since
July 6, 2023.” (Doc. 21, p.3). The court also ordered the Commissioner to file a
response to the Amended Complaint no later than 21 days after filing the Notice of
Decision and Notice of Award with the court. Id. p.4. Finally, the court ordered, “the
parties shall file no further motions or other pleadings in this case other than Motion(s)
for Extension of Time, pending further order of the court.” Id.
On July 28, 2025, the Commissioner filed a response to the court’s Scheduling
Order, filing the Notice of Decision dated July 6, 2023; the Notice of Award dated
September 5, 2025; and a Benefits Letter, dated July 12, 2025. (Doc. 23, Attachs. 2-4).
Plaintiff filed six documents on August 7, 2025 (Docs. 24-29), which were summarily
stricken by the court as filed in violation of the court’s Scheduling Order. (Doc. 30).
Thereafter, the Commissioner filed his Response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint—a
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim. (Doc. 31).
The court issued a Second Scheduling Order requiring Plaintiff to file a Response
to the Notice of Decision, Notice of Award, Benefits Letter, and the Motion to Dismiss
no later than September 30, 2025, and permitting the Commissioner to file a Reply no
later than 30 days thereafter. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff filed his Response (Doc. 33) (titled
Summary of Case Issues) on September 3, 2025, and the Commissioner filed his Reply
on September 29, 2025, making the issue ripe for consideration. (Doc. 34). Finally,
Plaintiff filed an unpermitted Surreply on October 9, 2025. (Doc. 35).
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 4 of 13

5
II. Discussion
In his motion to dismiss, the Commissioner points out the Amended Complaint
alleges diversity jurisdiction, but Plaintiff asserts both he and the Commissioner are
citizens of Kansas. He then argues both that federal agencies cannot be sued in diversity,
and that even under Plaintiff’s apparent theory diversity is destroyed because both
Plaintiff and the Commissioner are citizens of Kansas. (Doc. 31, p.1) (hereinafter Mot.
Dismiss). He then argues that, even if jurisdiction existed, Plaintiff’s equal protection
and due process claims would fail because the SSA mailed a letter regarding Plaintiff’s
benefits to his representative payee, Breakthrough House, and included detailed
information regarding his date of entitlement, calculation of backpay for January 2011
through August 2023, and offsets. (Mot. Dismiss, p.2) (citing Doc. 23, Attach. 4
(hereinafter Benefits Letter)). He then argues that the Commissioner’s provision of the
Benefits Letter provided the information Plaintiff seeks, there is no remaining
controversy or potential recurring violation, and this case should, therefore, be dismissed
as moot. Id. 2-3.
In his Response Brief, Plaintiff provides six objections to the Motion to Dismiss.
(Doc. 33, 1-2) (hereinafter Response, 1-2). Plaintiff objects (1) that the Benefits Letter
does not itemize each offset, preventing him from disputing it; argues (2) that his
bankruptcy discharge in 2020 precludes offsets and/or recoupment; argues (3) that the
backpay was erroneously based upon a date in 2011, instead of 1993 when SSI
(Supplemental Security Income) was first sought; argues (4) that $16,000 was
erroneously deducted for Medicare premiums; argues (5) the SSA erroneously applied
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 5 of 13

6
Title XVI Regulations rather than Title II Regulations to stop payments when he was
confined in public institutions; and argues (6) he was not given the opportunity to appeal
the suspension of benefits when he was confined in November, 2024 to determine
competency. (Response 1-2). Plaintiff expands on the bases of his objections in the
remainder of his Response Brief. Id. 3-7.
In his Reply Brief, the Commissioner reiterates his earlier arguments and asks the
court to dismiss the case on the bases previously argued. Although unpermitted,
Plaintiff’s Surreply (Doc. 35) has been considered but does not affect the decision of this
matter.
The Commissioner is correct that the presence of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration as the Defendant in this case defeats the diversity jurisdiction
alleged by Plaintiff. Rywelski v. Biden, No. 23-5099, 2024 WL 1905670 (10th Cir. May
1, 2024). However, in its Scheduling Order the court discussed the Complaint and the
Amended Complaint and found “it is clear that both the Complaint and the Amended
Complaint in this case are seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security granting CDB.” (Doc. 21, p.3). Moreover, in its Order denying a
preliminary injunction, the court pointed out that decisions of the Commissioner may
only be challenged pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 15). Thus, there can be no doubt
that if jurisdiction lies in this case, it must be based in § 205(g) of the Social Security Act.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Commissioner appears to acknowledge that fact in that he argues the Benefits
Letter provided in response to the court’s Scheduling Order “provided the most recent
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 6 of 13

7
information Plaintiff seeks in his Amended Complaint, [and] his case should be
dismissed based upon mootness.” (Mot. Dismiss 3) (citing Fed. Bureau of Investigation
v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 240–42, 144 S. Ct. 771, 777, 218 L. Ed. 2d 162 (2024)).
However, although the Benefits Letter provides helpful information necessary to decide
Plaintiff’s claims, it does not moot all the claims.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff argued, “I was in jail, yes but I was not found guilty or
serving a sentence.” (Doc. 1, p.3). Although Plaintiff did not make the same argument in
his Amended Complaint, in his response to the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff extensively alleges that the SSA applied Title XVI regulations rather than Title
II regulations when determining offset for time spent in a penal institution. (Doc. 33,
pp.2, 4-7) (hereinafter Pl. Response). In his Reply the Commissioner argues the Benefits
Letter provided Plaintiff, among other information, “an explanation as to why benefits
were not due for certain periods during which he was incarcerated.” (Doc. 34, p.1)
(hereinafter Comm’r Reply). The Commissioner is correct that the Letter explains,
He was not due benefits for March 2011 through August 2011, November
2012 through April 2013, February 2017 through May 2018 and August
2019 through October 2019 because he was confined to an institution as a
result of a court order in connection with a criminal case and the stay was
paid for with public funds.
(Benefits Letter 1) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Letter also states,
We could not pay him all of the Social Security benefits we withheld. This
is because he received SSI money for February 2011 through October 2023.
When receive SSI money is received [sic] for a month, and later Social
Security benefits are received, we have to reduce your Social Security
benefits. We do this to make sure that the total SSI and Social Security
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 7 of 13

8
monthly payment is not more than it would have been if the Social Security
benefits had been paid on time.
Allowing for JOSEPH L JONES Social Security benefits, we should have
paid him $48,340.58 less in SSI money. Because of this, we reduced his
Social Security benefits by $48,340.58.
Id. at 2.
The Title II regulation relating to nonpayment of benefits for prisoners, states, “No
monthly benefits will be paid to any individual for any month any part of which the
individual is confined in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility for
conviction of a felony.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(a). On its face, that regulation withholds
benefits only from individuals confined in a penal institution or correctional facility for
conviction of a felony. Judging from the language used in the Benefits Letter, SSI
benefits may be discontinued any time an individual is confined to an institution by a
court order in connection with a criminal case and the stay was paid for with public funds
and it appears that standard was applied to withhold SSI benefits. Moreover, it appears
from the language of the Benefits Letter that Title II CDB benefits were withheld for all
of the instances and for the entire time in which Title XVI SSI benefits were withheld
without considering whether Plaintiff was in a penal institution or correctional facility
was the subject of a conviction, and whether the conviction was for a felony. Finally, if
some of the periods of confinement were not properly considered, then perhaps the
computation of total SSI and Social Security benefits must be recomputed.
As the discussion above makes clear, Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim, and
that claim has not been rendered moot by the Commissioner’s Benefits Letter. The
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 8 of 13

9
deciding question before the court is whether Plaintiff’s claim was timely filed, and the
court finds it was.
In the Notice of Award issued September 5, 2023, the SSA notified Plaintiff he
was entitled to a monthly child’s benefit beginning January 2011 and he would receive
$865.00 that he was due for September 2023 and after that he would receive $865.00
each month. (Doc. 23, Attach. 3, p.1) (hereinafter Notice of Award). The Notice of
Award explained the agency’s handling of past due benefits:
We are withholding his Social Security benefits for January 2011 through
August 2023. We may have to reduce these benefits if he received
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for this period. When we decide
whether or not we will have to reduce his Social Security benefits, we will
send him another letter. We will pay him any Social Security benefits he is
due for this period.
Id.
The Notice also informed Plaintiff of his right to appeal:
You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.
The 60 days start the day after you get this letter. We assume you got this
letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that you did not get it
within the 5-day period.
You will have to have a good reason for waiting more than 60 days to ask
for an appeal.
Id. at 3.
This record does not indicate Plaintiff ever received a letter explaining the
reductions in his Social Security benefits before he received the Benefits Letter dated
July 12, 2025. and filed in this case, although the Benefits Letter indicates the net back
pay of $46,528.42 “was released to Joseph Jones on March 5, 2024.” Benefits Letter
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 9 of 13

10
pp.2-3. Moreover, the facts that the Commissioner did not provide a copy of such a
previously issued letter, that Plaintiff argued in his response to the Commissioner’s first
motion to dismiss that the “$45,000.00 on time payment around April 2024 clearly
doesn’t add up,” and that “around April 2024 unknown Topeka Social Security office
employee denied Mr. Jones the payment records [sic]” all suggest pretty convincingly the
Plaintiff never received (and the Commissioner never sent) a letter of explanation in
March 2024. (Doc. 12, p.3).
On this record, the first time Plaintiff received the promised explanation regarding
disposition of his CDB back pay was dated July 12, 2025, and was presented in
connection with this case. Thus, the first time he had an opportunity to confirm this
potential error in the final decision dated July 6, 2023, was after this case was filed—
clearly within the sixty days provided to request review in the Notice of Award.
To the extent the Commissioner may argue judicial review is unavailable in this
case because Plaintiff did not appeal to the agency and get a “final decision” regarding
the computation of benefits, this case reeks with the insinuation that the local office of the
Social Security Administration, despite that Plaintiff did not get the explanation he was
promised; and, for whatever reason, had a preconceived opinion regarding Plaintiff’s
allegations (as did this court when it first read the Complaint); and failed its duty to listen
to the complaints, investigate the facts of the case, and explain in detail and clarity how to
appeal the computation of his benefits. The court is aware the SSA handles millions of
cases annually, and the Topeka office likely handles thousands of transactions, but the
public is entitled to expect competent, caring service—even from an overworked agency,
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 10 of 13

11
and even when the individual’s idiosyncrasies make it difficult. Nonetheless, the court is
willing to order a remand in accordance with sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), but not
sentence four, should the Commissioner request it.
The court has considered Plaintiffs remaining allegations of error and finds them
without merit. Regarding Plaintiff’s claims the Commissioner erred in failing to itemize
each offset individually and in offsetting and/or recouping liabilities occurring before his
bankruptcy discharge in 2020, Plaintiff cites no authority demonstrating that the
Commissioner is required to itemize offsets individually or that liabilities in Social
Security computations are dischargeable in bankruptcy. Therefore, he has not
demonstrated error in those matters.
Plaintiff’s argument that Social Security benefits were payable before 2011
ignores the Benefits Letter’s explanation:
The earliest month of entitlement a child can have to Social Security
benefits on the record of a parent is the month of entitlement of the parent
when the parent is alive or the month of death if the parent is deceased.
Cheryl Jones' month of entitlement to Social Security benefits was January
2011. Joseph Jones' month of entitlement is also January 2011 based on
Cheryl’s month of entitlement. He cannot have an earlier month of
entitlement on the record of Cheryl Jones even though he was found
disabled as of December 10, 1986.
(Benefits Letter 1). Plaintiff has demonstrated no error in this explanation.
Plaintiff’s argument $16,000 was erroneously deducted from his back pay
misunderstands the Notice of Award. The Notice of Award informed Plaintiff his
medical insurance under Medicare began September 2023. (Notice of Award 1). It then
explained he could choose to have medical insurance start in January 2013, but to do so
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 11 of 13

12
he must tell the agency “in writing that you want medical insurance beginning January
2013,” and “pay us $16,453.60 or tell us we can withhold this amount from your check.”
(Notice of Award 2) (underlines added). Plaintiff did not tell the agency they could
withhold the payment from his check, they did not do so, and Plaintiff provides no
evidence that they did so. Thus, the court finds no error in this regard.
Finally, Plaintiff’s claim the Commissioner erred in failing to allow him to appeal
the suspension of benefits when he was confined in November 2024 is subsumed within
the court’s decision above regarding the application of 20 C.F.R § 404.468(a).
In conclusion, the court finds it necessary for the Commissioner to investigate how
the Plaintiff’s confinement was considered in light of 20 C.F.R. § 404.468 and the court’s
findings above, and if necessary, to recompute Plaintiff’s back pay back to 2011 in light
thereof and to report back to this court with his findings. Because the court has found
additional briefing is necessary to decide the issues here and because the government’s
attorneys cannot address the issues due to the current lapse in appropriations (the
“government shutdown”), the court finds this case now stayed by District of Kansas
Standing Order 25-05. Therefore, the court will issue an order after the lapse in
appropriations is resolved setting a briefing schedule on this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 31) is DENIED as discussed above and Plaintiff’s Motion for Mandamus (Doc. 11)
is DENIED as mooted by this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner shall investigate how the
Plaintiff’s periods of confinement were considered in light of 20 C.F.R. § 404.468 and
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 12 of 13

13
the court’s findings above, and if necessary, shall recompute Plaintiff’s back pay back to
2011 in light thereof, and report back to this court with his findings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will issue a further briefing schedule
after the current lapse in appropriations is resolved.
Dated October 21, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s:/ John W. Lungstrum _
John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-04031-JWL Document 36 Filed 10/21/25 Page 13 of 13