Mueller v. Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
DARREN M. MUELLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
Civil No. 26-00114 MWJS-RT
ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS
AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
INTRODUCTION
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Darren M. Mueller’s complaint against the
Social Security Administration, filed on March 5, 2026. Dkt. No. 1. Mueller also seeks
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees or security.
Dkt. No. 3.
When a litigant asks to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court must
review the complaint before the suit may proceed. As part of that review, the court
must ensure that it has the authority—subject matter jurisdiction—to hear the case.
Although Mueller’s financial affidavit supports granting IFP status, the complaint does
not establish that this court has subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, the sole
defendant named in the complaint—the Social Security Administration—is a federal
agency that is generally immune from suit absent a waiver of sovereign immunity.
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

2
For these reasons, the court GRANTS Mueller’s IFP application, but DISMISSES
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Mueller may be able to
cure these deficiencies—for example, by properly alleging a basis for federal jurisdiction
or by filing an appropriate Social Security complaint—the court GRANTS him leave to
amend.
DISCUSSION
A. 	The IFP Application
Federal law permits a court to allow a party to proceed without prepayment of
fees if the party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay those fees. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The applicant need not demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), but must at least “allege
poverty with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty,” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787
F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). An affidavit is sufficient where it alleges
that the applicant “cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id.
(citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
In this case, Mueller has submitted an affidavit in which he represents he has no
source of income and no wages. Dkt. No. 3, at PageID.8 He notes that he has $240.00 in
his bank account. Id. at PageID.9. His assets are limited to some “error coins” and rare
coins, which are located in a safe deposit box and apparently quoted by eBay to be
worth $25,000—but which Mueller claims are “at risk due to the Social Security
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

3
Administration.” Id. His regular monthly expenses include bus fare to retrieve mail,
and his debts and obligations are approximately $240 to the Bank of Hawaiʻi. Id.
Having reviewed Mueller’s application, which reflects no income and limited
assets—of speculative value—the court concludes that he has made the necessary
showing to proceed IFP. The information provided indicates that requiring
prepayment of the filing fee would interfere with his ability to meet ordinary living
expenses. The court therefore GRANTS Mueller’s IFP application.
B. 	Screening of the Complaint
Even after granting IFP status, the court must conduct a screening of the
plaintiff’s complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a complaint
that fails to state a claim, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or otherwise cannot
proceed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Because pro se plaintiffs often face significant hurdles in navigating the court
system, courts construe their pleadings liberally. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,
1112 (9th Cir. 2012). But even pro se plaintiffs must adequately allege subject matter
jurisdiction before their actions may proceed in federal court. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). The court has “an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.” Id. So if a plaintiff fails to plead sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

4
the court to assert subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In its current form, Mueller’s complaint does not provide sufficient
detail to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction.
1. Mueller has indicated that the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction over his
case is a federal question. Dkt. No. 1, at PageID.3. But when asked to list which specific
provisions of federal statutes, treaties, or provisions of the United States Constitution
are at issue, Mueller’s complaint alleges “unbecoming of a federal employee, as [he]
could die from said injuries, heart, frontal lobe atrophy, hernia, two surgeries.” Id.
Mueller’s complaint is sparse on factual allegations and does not identify any
federal law under which his claims arise. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts
have original jurisdiction over all civil cases that involve the Constitution or federal law.
Federal question jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the
face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987). While Mueller alleges the defendant “lowered benefits for no reason,”
and that he has been struggling as a result, Dkt. No. 1, at PageID.4, it is not readily
apparent from the complaint, as alleged, which specific federal statutes these allegations
are made under. Although Mueller lists the Social Security Administration as
defendant, that reference alone does not confer federal question jurisdiction. References
to federal agencies are insufficient, without more, to establish jurisdiction. See Shulthis
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

5
v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569–70 (1912); Dkt. No. 1, at PageID.1. Mueller, therefore, has
not been able to invoke federal question jurisdiction.
2. Federal question jurisdiction is not the only possible basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. A federal court may also exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between “citizens of
different States.” The citizenship requirement demands “complete diversity of
citizenship between the opposing parties—in other words, Plaintiff must be a citizen of
a different state than all of the defendants.” Gilbert v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, Civ. No.
17-00575, 2017 WL 6519017, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 20, 2017). A plaintiff invoking diversity
jurisdiction must therefore allege facts establishing the citizenship of each party.
Mueller does not expressly invoke diversity jurisdiction, but he provides some
information that could be relevant to that inquiry. He states that he is a citizen of
Hawaiʻi and identifies the Social Security Administration as located in Hawaiʻi. Dkt.
No. 1, at PageID.3-4. Mueller also suggests that the amount in controversy involves the
“loss of property,” including an adopted kitten, books, and furniture, which he
attributes to reduced or denied benefits. Id. at PageID.4.
Even assuming Mueller intended to invoke diversity jurisdiction, that basis for
jurisdiction is unavailable here. Diversity jurisdiction exists only where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). Mueller’s complaint names the Social Security Administration—a
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 5 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

6
federal agency—as the sole defendant. But federal agencies are not “citizens” of any
particular state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Hancock Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ins. Corp., 492 F.2d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1974). Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction
cannot provide a basis for federal jurisdiction in this case.
3. Finally, to the extent that the complaint makes allegations against the Social
Security Administration as a federal agency, that agency is protected from suit by
sovereign immunity. See Balser v. Dep’t of Just., Off. of U.S. Tr., 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir.
2003) (noting that “[t]he United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it has
waived its immunity” and “any lawsuit against an agency of the United States . . . is
considered an action against the United States”). And a “court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over a claim against the United States if it has not consented to be sued on
that claim.” Id. Here, Mueller alleges that the Social Security Administration “lowered
benefits for no reason” and that he seeks relief based on this “arbitrary and capricious
behavior.” Dkt. No. 1, at PageID.4-5. But he has identified no waiver of those agencies’
sovereign immunity—meaning that the court lacks jurisdiction.
It is possible that Mueller is attempting to challenge a decision regarding Social
Security benefits, but such claims must generally be brought as a civil action for judicial
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Under that statute, actions seeking review of Social Security decisions must
comply with specific requirements and are typically brought using a Social Security
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 6 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

7
complaint identifying the final administrative decision being challenged. See Brown v.
Kijakazi, 11 F.4th 1008, 1009 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he statutory procedural vehicle for
seeking judicial review of a social security decision is a civil complaint filed in the
district court, asserting the statutory cause of action against the Commissioner.”).
Mueller’s complaint, as currently written, does not identify any statute, final
administrative decision, or otherwise allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction
under § 405(g).
Ultimately, because Mueller’s complaint does not establish a basis for subject
matter jurisdiction, seeks relief against a federal agency that is protected by sovereign
immunity, and does not follow the procedures required to bring a Social Security
appeal, the complaint cannot proceed in its current form. The court therefore
DISMISSES the complaint.
C. 	Leave to Amend
As a general rule, leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); See Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A]
district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was
made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the
allegation of other facts.”). Because it is possible that Mueller may be able to cure these
deficiencies—for example, by alleging a proper basis for federal question jurisdiction or
by filing an appropriate Social Security complaint—the court GRANTS leave to amend.
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 7 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

8
Any amended complaint—which should be titled “First Amended Complaint”—
must be filed by April 16, 2026, and must cure the deficiencies identified above; that is,
Mueller must provide sufficient facts to establish subject matter jurisdiction as
described above. Mueller is cautioned that failure to timely file an amended complaint
that addresses the deficiencies identified above will result in the automatic dismissal of
this action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Mueller’s IFP application,
DISMISSES the complaint, and GRANTS Mueller leave to amend.
If Mueller elects to file an amended complaint, he must comply with the
following requirements:
(1) Mueller’s deadline to file an amended complaint is April 16, 2026;
(2) Mueller’s amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint”;
and
(3) Mueller must cure the deficiencies identified above.
Mueller is cautioned that failure to timely file an amended complaint that complies with
this order will result in automatic dismissal of this action.
//
//
//
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 8 of 9
PageID.<pageID>

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 16, 2026, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Civil No. 26-00114 MWJS-RT; Darren M. Mueller v. Social Security Administration; ORDER
(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
/s/ Micah W.J. Smith
Micah W.J. Smith
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00114-MWJS-RT Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 9 of 9
PageID.<pageID>