Donald Mains v. MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 23, 2024*
Decided February 23, 2024
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2757
DONALD MAINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARTIN J. O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-92-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
* This appeal is successive to case No. 20-1362 and under Operating Procedure
6(b) is decided by the same panel. We have agreed to decide the case without oral
argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal
arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2757 Page 2
O R D E R
Donald Mains believes that the Social Security Administration has been
discriminating against him by underpaying his retirement and disability benefits. When
he first asserted this claim in 2018, the district court dismissed the case for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), explaining that Mains had not
challenged a “final decision” of the agency “made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
We affirmed. Mains v. Saul, 821 F. App’x 636, 637 (7th Cir. 2020). Mains then asserted
the same claim in three subsequent lawsuits. The district court dismissed each case,
ruling that it lacked jurisdiction and that the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion
barred Mains from asserting matters already litigated.
Mains appeals the most recent dismissal order, repeating his assertion that he is
entitled to additional benefits. But as the district court carefully explained, it could not
reach the merits of his claim without jurisdiction, which it lacked because Mains had
not challenged a final decision of the agency. We agree. That resolves this appeal.
See McHugh v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 55 F.4th 529, 535 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)).
We conclude with the matter of sanctions. Mains was warned by the district
court that if he files another lawsuit asserting this claim, he will be subject to sanctions
in that court. We now similarly warn Mains that future frivolous appeals may result in
sanctions against him, including fines that, if unpaid, may result in a bar on filing
papers in any court within this circuit. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186
(7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --