Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UVALDO J. RUIZ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:24-cv-1176
Hon. Paul L. Maloney
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff filed a complaint in Michigan’s 17th Circuit Court for the Kent
County which challenges the suspension of his Social Security benefits which occurred in
November 2013. See Compl. (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.4). Plaintiff filed the complaint more than a
decade later on or about October 4, 2024. Id. at PageID.5. Defendant removed this matter to this
Court. See Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). This matter is now before the Court on defendant’s
“Motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment” (ECF No. 10). 	The motion is
unopposed.
I. 	Plaintiff’s claim
Plaintiff filed a one-page complaint which challenges the suspension of his
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which occurred over a decade ago in 2013. See Compl. (ECF
No. 1-1, PageID.4). The record reflects that defendant suspended plaintiff’s SSI because he was
convicted of crime while receiving the disability benefits and imprisoned for a number of years.
Case 1:24-cv-01176-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/10/26 Page 1
of 7

2
According to agency records attached to defendant’s motion, plaintiff was eligible for SSI in
November 1997. See Joseph Starr Decl. (ECF No. 11-1, PageID.33). 1 On May 30, 2013, plaintiff
pled guilty in this Court to the felony crime of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of
racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3). See United States v. Ruiz, 1:12-cr-
132 (W.D. Mich.) (ECF Nos. 448, 450). 	On October 8, 2013, the Court sentenced him to 42
months in custody, 3 years of supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment. Id. (ECF Nos.
672, 691).
Plaintiff’s benefits ceased because he was convicted of a crime and sent to prison
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(1), which provides that an individual is not eligible for SSI “with
respect to any month if throughout such month he is an inmate of a public institution” unless an
exception applies. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.211 (precluding eligibility for SSI benefits “for any month
throughout which you are a resident of a public institution as defined in § 416.201”); 20 C.F.R. §
416.1325 (requiring suspension of benefits under these circumstances); 20 C.F.R. 	§ 416.1335
(requiring termination of benefits when they have been continuously suspended for a 12-month
period).
Defendant advised plaintiff of the suspension in an SSI “Notice of Planned Action”
dated November 13, 2013 (ECF No. 11-2, PageID.36). Among other things, the Notice advised
plaintiff: that from November 1, 2013, his monthly payments will be changed to “$0.00” and that
his payments will stop beginning on December 1, 2013. 	Id. 	The Notice explained that the
payments are changing because plaintiff entered a facility in October 2013 and that he will be in
the facility for each full month commencing November 2013. Id. Plaintiff was advised the SSI
1 Joseph Starr is an RSI Program Specialist at the SSA. PageID.32.
Case 1:24-cv-01176-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/10/26 Page 2
of 7

3
payments are stopped for each month that:
You are a patient for a full month in an institution run by the Federal, State, or local
government. This includes some hospitals, nursing homes, other care facilities, or
prisons[.]
Id,
Plaintiff was also advised on the time to file an appeal of the decision. Id. at
PageID.38. Plaintiff was advised on how to proceed, “If You Disagree” with the Notice:
If you disagree with this decision, you have the right to appeal. A person
who did not make the first decision will decide the appeal. We call this appeal a
reconsideration. When you appeal, we review your entire case, even the parts with
which you agree. We consider any new facts we have and then make a new
decision. The new decision could be more favorable, less favorable, or the same as
the one you already have.
Notice at PageID.38. Plaintiff was further advised that he had 60 days to file an appeal. 	Id.
Plaintiff was also advised on “How To Appeal”, the three types of appeal, how to obtain help with
an appeal, and where to obtain information (“If You Have Questions”). Id. at PageID.38-40. The
SSA mailed this notice to both plaintiff and his “representative payee”. Id. at PageID.36-37. See
Notice to “Yolanda Ruiz for Uvaldo Jesus Ruiz” (ECF No. 11-3).
II. 	Motion to dismiss
A. Legal Standard
Plaintiff’s claim contests the SSA’s November 13, 2013 action discontinuing his
SSI benefits. 	As part of his claim, plaintiff included a one-sentence allegation that the SSA’s
action violated his constitutional right to due process. 	Defendants filed a combined motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and in the alternative for
summary judgment. 	Despite the name of the motion, this is essentially a motion to dismiss
Case 1:24-cv-01176-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/10/26 Page 3
of 7

4
plaintiff’s one-page complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to give the
defendants a fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atlantic Corporation
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 	A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. 	The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully. 	Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility
of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
In making this determination, the complaint must be construed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, and its well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true. 	Morgan v. Church’s
Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987). 	While pro se pleadings are to be liberally
construed, see Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), “this court is not required to
conjure up unpled allegations.” Dietz v. Sanders, 100 Fed. Appx. 334, 338 (6th Cir. 2004). Thus,
“an unadorned, the - defendant - unlawfully - harmed - me accusation” is insufficient to state a
claim for relief. 	See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Finally, “[w]hen a court is presented with a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, it may consider the Complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, public records,
items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss so
long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained therein.”
Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008). 	As
2 Defendants do not develop lack of jurisdiction or summary judgment in a meaningful manner.
Case 1:24-cv-01176-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/10/26 Page 4
of 7

5
discussed, supra, defendant’s motion to dismiss included records and a declaration which address
plaintiff’s SSI claim at issue in this lawsuit.
B. 	Discussion
1. 	Plaintiff did not appeal defendant’s action
The Court construes plaintiff’s complaint as contesting the agency’s November 13,
2013 discontinuance of benefits.3 Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff filed
the lawsuit without exhausting the agency’s administrative review process for appealing the
decision. Judicial appeals of Social Security decisions are authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which
provides in pertinent part that:
Any individual after any final decision of the Commissioner made after a hearing
to which he was a party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action
commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or
within such further time as the Commissioner may allow.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]his provision
clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S.
99, 108 (1977). See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein
provided.”).
The Supreme Court explained the administrative review process in Smith v.
Berryhill, 587 U.S. 471 (2019):
[C]laimants must generally proceed through a four-step process before they can
obtain review from a federal court. 	First, the claimant must seek an initial
determination as to his eligibility. Second, the claimant must seek reconsideration
3 The Court notes that plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the agency “revoked” or wrongfully terminated his
SSI benefits, that the agency breached its fiduciary duty to “reissue my disability benefits with back pay”, and that the
agency was negligent by “[f]ailing to follow up on my case and address the wrongful termination of my benefits in a
timely manner”. See Compl. at PageID.4.
Case 1:24-cv-01176-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/10/26 Page 5
of 7

6
of the initial determination. Third, the claimant must request a hearing, which is
conducted by an ALJ. Fourth, the claimant must seek review of the ALJ’s decision
by the Appeals Council. 	See 20 CFR § 416.1400. If a claimant has proceeded
through all four steps on the merits, all agree, § 405(g) entitles him to judicial
review in federal district court.
Smith, 587 U.S. at 475-76. 	The regulations further provide that such a civil action “must be
instituted within 60 days after the Appeals Council’s notice of denial of request for review of the
administrative law judge’s decision . . . is received by the individual[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c).
Based on the agency’s records attached to defendant’s motion to dismiss, there is
no evidence that plaintiff took any steps to appeal the November 13, 2013 Notice. As Mr. Starr
stated:
8. There is no indication that [plaintiff] or his representative payee filed an
administrative appeal of the suspension of his benefits described in the November
2013 Notice of Planned Action.
9. [Plaintiff’s] eligibility for SSI was subsequently terminated due to the continuous
suspension of his benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1335 (requiring termination of
benefits when they have been continuously suspended for a 12-month period).
Starr Decl. at PageID.34. 	In short, there is no final decision for this Court to review pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 	Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim contesting the “Notice of Planned Action”
should be dismissed.
2. 	Plaintiff did not allege a plausible constitutional claim
Plaintiff also claims that defendant violated his due process rights. Section 405(g)
does not serve as a jurisdictional bar for the “adjudication of colorable constitutional claims”.
Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security, 742 Fed. Appx. 94, 96 (6th Cir. 2018). See Califano,
430 U.S. at 109 (“Constitutional questions obviously are unsuited to resolution in administrative
hearing procedures and, therefore, access to the courts is essential to the decision of such
Case 1:24-cv-01176-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/10/26 Page 6
of 7

7
questions”). Here, plaintiff has not alleged any facts to support a “colorable constitutional claim”
against defendant. Rather, plaintiff makes a conclusory allegation of constitutional harm:
Violation of Due Process: The SSA revoked my Social Security Disability benefits
[i.e., SSI] around November 2013 without providing adequate notice or an
opportunity to be heard, thereby violating my right to due process under the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Compl. at PageID.4. Plaintiff repeated this claim stating, “[f]ailing to follow up on my case and
address the wrongful termination of my benefits in a timely manner [r]evoking my benefits without
due process” and “[t]he SSA’s failure to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to contest the
revocation of my benefits deprived me of my right to due process.” Plaintiff’s due process claim
is nothing more than “an unadorned, the - defendant - unlawfully - harmed - me accusation” which
is insufficient to state a claim for relief. 	See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 	Accordingly, plaintiff’s
constitutional claim should be dismissed.
III. 	Recommendation
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that defendant’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 10) be GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED.
Dated: February 10, 2026 	/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
United States Magistrate Judge
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of the report. All objections and responses to
objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to serve and file written objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case 1:24-cv-01176-PLM-RSK ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/10/26 Page 7
of 7