Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard Crosby
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-469-SM
Social Security Administration
Report and Recommendation
Richard Crosby, who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a complaint (document no. 1) that purports to
remove a case from state court to this court and seeks
disability insurance benefits from the Social Security
Administration. He has also filed two addenda (documents nos. 4
& 5), which are considered with the complaint. The complaint and
addenda were referred for preliminary review to determine
whether the plaintiff states a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); LR 4.3(d)(1).
I. 	Removal
In the complaint (document no. 1), Crosby states that the
case is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which
pertains to removal of certain actions from state court to
federal court. Crosby further states that “[t]he state court
action is a complaint in connection with acts done by the Social
Security Administration (SSA), an agency of the Department of
Health and Human Services, a department of the United States of
Case 1:22-cv-00469-SM Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4

2
America.” Doc. 1, at 1. Crosby did not file copies of any
proceedings from a state court action.
Section 1442(a)(1) provides that when a civil action or
criminal prosecution is initiated in a state court and is
brought against or is directed to the United States or an agency
or officer of the United States that defendant can remove the
case to federal court. As such, the statute does not permit
removal by a party other than those listed and does not provide
grounds for initiating an action in this court. Crosby is not an
officer of a United States agency and, therefore, cannot remove
a state court action to this court. Also, removal is not a
procedure available to a plaintiff who chose the forum in the
first instance.
Therefore, Crosby cannot proceed through removal of a state
court action to this court.
II. Social Security Benefits
Crosby states in the complaint that he is seeking an award
of disability insurance benefits from the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) based on his work history that he
contends was fraudulently altered by the SSA. In the addenda,
Crosby filed copies of rulings from and communications with the
Social Security Administration from 2015. He is currently
Case 1:22-cv-00469-SM Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4

3
communicating with the local office of the SSA about his theory
of falsification of his records.
Previously, Crosby filed suit against the SSA in
Hillsborough County Superior Court, seeking review of the
decision denying his benefits and alleging fraud by the SSA. The
SSA removed that action to this court where it was dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. Crosby v. Social Security Administration,
22-cv-234-SE, Op. No. 2022 DNH 099, (D.N.H. Aug. 18, 2022).
Judgment entered on August 19, 2022.
Dissatisfied with that result, less than three months
later, Crosby filed this case in which he alleges the same
claims against the SSA. For the reasons stated by Judge Elliott
in Crosby’s first case, this court lacks jurisdiction and Crosby
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Crosby’s
ongoing interactions with the local office of the SSA do not
provide grounds to support jurisdiction or the substance of his
claims. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court should
dismiss the complaint (doc. no. 1) along with the addenda (docs.
nos. 4 & 5).
Case 1:22-cv-00469-SM Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4

4
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection to this
Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district
court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by such
objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. 	Failure to file
any objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court's order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
November 21, 2022
cc: Richard Crosby, pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00469-SM Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4