United States District Court, D. New Mexico
KENT E. GREENHALGH, Plaintiff,
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,  et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
MATTER is before the Court upon review of plaintiff Kent E.
Greenhalgh's “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.” Doc. 1 (“Complaint”).
For the reasons stated below, the Court will DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Greenhalgh's complaint and
give him twenty-one days to amend it.
Greenhalgh's complaint alleges that the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) and the New Mexico Human
Services Department (“HSD”) wrongly denied him
disability benefits or “claims for general
assistance” and requests that this Court grant him
“all past due back pay plus hardship dues.” Doc.
1 at 1-2, 5. Mr. Greenhalgh's complaint, however, does
not contain a “statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1), for
his claim against the SSA. See Id. at
Neither does his complaint “state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), for his
claim against the HSD. See Id. at 1-7.Consequently, this
Court ordered Mr. Greenhalgh to show cause as to why his
complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for these
two failures. Doc. 5 at 1.
Greenhalgh timely responded and asked this court (1) to
“remand the case back to the [SSA], ” given that
“all avenues in the [SSA's] Adjudication Department
. . . have been exhausted” and that additional evidence
now shows he is disabled, and (2) to “withdraw any and
all action[s]” against the HSD, given that he
“has not exhausted all remedies” with the HSD.
Doc. 6 at 1-2.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a]
pleading that states a claim for relief must contain
. . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)
(emphasis added); see also Walden v. Bartlett, 840
F.2d 771, 775 (10th Cir. 1988) (stating that a plaintiff must
allege “facts sufficient to invoke the court's
jurisdiction”). Otherwise, the Court may dismiss a
plaintiff's case without prejudice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b);
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cty.
Justice Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1162 & n.3 (10th Cir.
Greenhalgh's complaint, however, does not provide this
Court with a “statement of the grounds for [its]
jurisdiction” over the SSA claim. Specifically, nowhere
in his complaint does Mr. Greenhalgh allege that he is
appealing a “final” decision of the
Commissioner-a clear jurisdictional requirement of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405-or that a constitutional violation occurred.
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. §
416.1400(a)(5); Nelson, 927 F.2d at 1111;
Marshall, 5 F.3d at 455. Although Mr.
Greenhalgh's response implies that he perhaps
intends to appeal a final decision of the
Commissioner, see Doc. 6 at 1, his complaint never
states that he is in fact appealing such a final decision.
Therefore, as Mr. Greenhalgh's SSA claim has not been
corrected so as to invoke this Court's jurisdiction, the
Court will dismiss this claim without prejudice.
Mr. Greenhalgh's HSD claim, which he brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, does not allege a constitutional
violation by an individual acting under color of state law,
it is subject to this Court's dismissal. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Hall, 584 F.3d at 864;
Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1281-82 (10th Cir.
2001). Consequently, given that this Court cannot grant
relief for such a claim and that Mr. Greenhalgh has
specifically asked this Court to withdraw this claim, the
Court will also dismiss this claim without prejudice.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Kent E.
Greenhalgh's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Greenhalgh shall have
twenty-one (21) days to file an amended complaint.
 On June 17, 2019, Andrew Saul was
sworn in as Commissioner of Social Security. Consequently,
Mr. Saul has been “automatically substituted as a
party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d). Furthermore, because
“[l]ater proceedings should be in [his] name, ”
the Court has changed the caption of this case accordingly.
Id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (stating that
such an action “survive[s] notwithstanding any change