Joseph Aruanno v. Commissioner Social Security , 517 F. App'x 72 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • CLD-177                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-4341
    ___________
    JOSEPH ARUANNO,
    Appellant
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civil No. 2-12-cv-05030)
    District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
    Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    March 28, 2013
    Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed April 18, 2013)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Joseph Aruanno appeals an order of the United States District Court for the
    District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B).
    We will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
    On July 29, 2012, Aruanno filed a pro se complaint in the District Court against
    the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) seeking judicial review
    of his suspension of Social Security disability (“SSDI”) benefits. His SSDI benefits were
    suspended after he was incarcerated in 1996. He claimed that he “attempted to restart
    benefits [he] had previously been collecting but . . . [the SSA] refuses to submit a formal
    written decision.” (Dkt. No. 1, p. 6.) Aruanno requested injunctive relief to force the
    SSA to issue a final decision or a determination that he had exhausted his administrative
    remedies, so that the District Court could exercise jurisdiction over his case. (Id. at 7.)
    The District Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B), or alternatively, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No.
    2, p. 4.) Aruanno timely appealed.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . Our review of the dismissal of
    Aruanno’s complaint is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 
    229 F.3d 220
    , 223 (3d Cir.
    2000) (failure to state a claim); Tobak v. Apfel, 
    195 F.3d 183
    , 185 (3d Cir. 1999) (lack of
    subject matter jurisdiction). We may affirm the District Court on any ground supported
    by the record. See OSS Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, 
    617 F.3d 756
    , 761 (3d
    Cir. 2010).
    The District Court found that Aruanno raised the same claims in a previous case
    against the same party. Because that case was dismissed for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction due to Aruanno’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Aruanno v.
    Astrue, No. 11-cv-2521, 
    2011 WL 6029684
     (D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2011), aff’d, 471 F. App’x
    2
    87, 89 (3d Cir. 2012), the District Court dismissed his complaint under the doctrine of
    claim preclusion, see Duhaney v. Att’y Gen., 
    621 F.3d 340
    , 347 (3d Cir. 2010).
    However, we express no opinion on that determination because we will affirm the
    dismissal of Aruanno’s complaint on the ground that the District Court again lacked
    subject matter jurisdiction over it given his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
    Fitzgerald v Apfel, 
    148 F.3d 232
    , 234 (3d Cir. 1998) (absent “final decision,” District
    Court has no jurisdiction to review SSA determination). Aruanno’s complaint did not
    raise any claims collateral to his claim for benefits that would justify waiving the
    exhaustion requirement. See Fitzgerald, 
    148 F.3d at 234
    . In his opposition to summary
    action, Aruanno does not argue that he took any steps to exhaust his administrative
    remedies, even after our previous decision affirming the District Court dismissal of his
    complaint for failure to do so.
    Accordingly, because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will
    summarily affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Aruanno’s complaint. 3d Cir. LAR
    27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
    3