Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RICHARD HINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cv-10758-APP
Hon. Anthony P. Patti
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 8)
Plaintiff Richard Hinson filed this action against Frank Bisignano,
Commissioner of Social Security, for review of a Supplemental Security Income
denial. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.
I. 	Factual Background
Richard Hinson filed this action against Frank Bisigano, Commissioner of
Social Security, on March 18, 2025, for review of a Supplemental Security Income
denial. (ECF No. 1) Before this action, the Appeals Council denied Hinson’s
request for review of the Commissioner’s decision denying his application under
Case 2:25-cv-10758-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Title XVI for supplemental security income on March 5, 2025. (ECF No. 1,
PageID.2-3.) By the time the complaint initiating this action was filed, Hinson had
passed away.
Defendant seeks dismissal of this matter, arguing that this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not have standing at the time
this civil action was filed as he did not “legally exist.” (ECF No. 8, PageID.866)
Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s Counsel, communicating this jurisdictional concern
on March 24, 2025. (ECF No. 8, PageID.874) The motion now before the Court
was filed by Defendant on May 19, 2025. (ECF No. 8) Following Plaintiff’s
failure to respond to Defendant’s motion in a timely manner, this Court entered a
Show Cause Order to which Plaintiff responded. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10). Plaintiff
argued that there are viable reasons to preserve this case, specifically, the potential
substitution of a party for Plaintiff, based on the “potential existence of an eligible
survivor” (ECF No. 10, PageID.884); however, this Court does not agree.
II. 	Legal Standards
A. Motion to Dismiss
Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a case may be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “When subject matter jurisdiction
is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the burden of proving
Case 2:25-cv-10758-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 5

3
jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Madison-Hughes v. Shalala, 80 F.3d
1121, 1130 (6th Cir. 1996).
B. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
In this case, Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. (ECF
No. 8) A lack of Article III standing implicates a court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction and requires dismissal of the case. Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d
1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). Under Article III, to have standing, a plaintiff must
satisfy a three-part test. He must have: “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.
330 (2016); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
“The existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts as they
exist when the complaint is filed.” Lujan, at 569-71 n.4. Therefore, standing must
be determined based on what was known at the time the suit was filed. If a party
does not have standing, then “the only function remaining to the court is that of
announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506,
514 (1868).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacked standing at the time this civil action
was filed because Plaintiff was deceased, rendering him legally non-existent. In
Sesam v. Superior Stone & Interiors, LLC, the court determined that the Plaintiff
Case 2:25-cv-10758-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 5

4
“did not legally exist” when the action commenced because he had passed away
sixty-two days before the complaint was filed. Sesam v. Superior Stone &
Interiors, LLC, No. 23-CV-1335 (MKB), 2024 WL 4955261 at 3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.
3, 2024) (citing House v. Mitra QSR KNE LLC, 796 F.App’x 783, 787 (4th Cir.
2019)). A plaintiff who is deceased, and, therefore, does not legally exist, lacks
standing because he “simply no longer has a cognizable interest in the outcome of
[the] litigation[.]” Billino v. Citibank, N.A., 123 F.3d 723, 725 (2d Cir. 1997).
“Most courts to consider this question have reached the same result, concluding
that a deceased plaintiff’s lack of legal existence . . . is a non-curable jurisdictional
defect.” House, 796 F.App’x at 788.
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff passed away before Counsel filed the complaint, so at the time the
suit was commenced, Hinson did not “legally exist.” A deceased person cannot
satisfy all three requirements for Article III standing (injury-in-fact, causation, and
redressability) because the Court cannot “offer redress to a deceased person.”
House, 796 F.App’x at 787. Therefore, Hinson lacked Article III standing to bring
claims against the Defendant at the time this civil action was filed.
IV. 	Conclusion
The case has now been pending for seven months. From the outset, there has
been no existent plaintiff and there still is none today. The Court has bided its time
Case 2:25-cv-10758-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 5

5
long enough. Plaintiff’s lack of standing in this case cannot be cured through the
substitution of a party, and, arguendo, even if it could, counsel’s ongoing
suggestion of a “potential existence of an eligible survivor” (ECF No. 10,
PageID.884) is a vague contingency and has left the case in limbo well beyond any
reasonable shelf life. The time for finding a suitable personal representative for
Hinson’s estate, assuming that his estate would even have a claim or standing to
bring one, was before filing suit, not some indefinite time afterwards. Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction is
GRANTED. The case is HEREBY DISMISSED without prejudice. See Katz v.
Donna Karan Co., LLC, 872 F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 2017) (“[W]here a case is
dismissed for lack of Article III standing, as here, that disposition cannot be
entered with prejudice, and instead must be dismissed without prejudice.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2025
_____________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-10758-APP ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 5