Smuda v. Marten
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:25-cv-01146
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Smuda v. Marten, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied two of the plaintiff's three motions to amend his Social Security complaint on procedural grounds, accepted his proposed Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading, and ordered him to file either a Third Amended Complaint or a voluntary dismissal within 21 days given recent developments in a related North Dakota case and a government offer to reverse his 2020 benefits suspension.
Pro se (self-represented) Social Security claimants who have had benefits suspended due to civil commitment and are seeking to challenge those suspensions or recover overpayments in federal court. Also relevant to litigants navigating amended complaint requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 15.1(a).
What happened
In Smuda v. Marten (Case No. 25-cv-01146), Ricky A. S. is suing two federal officials — Lynn Marten and Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano — seeking reinstatement and repayment of Social Security benefits that the Social Security Administration (SSA) suspended and sought to recover as overpayments. The SSA said Plaintiff was 'imprisoned for the Conviction of a Crime,' but Plaintiff argues he is civilly committed — meaning held in a treatment program, not serving a criminal sentence — and therefore the suspension was improper. His case is also connected to a 2014 lawsuit he filed in North Dakota federal court that was sent back to the SSA for further review and had been dormant for nearly a decade before recently being reopened.
Plaintiff filed three separate motions to amend his complaint. The first was denied because it lacked his signature (required by federal court rules) and was not a complete, standalone document as required by the District of Minnesota's local rules. The second was denied as moot once the court addressed the third. The third motion to amend was granted in part: the court accepted the proposed Second Amended Complaint as the active complaint in the case, finding no undue delay, bad faith, or unfair harm to the defendants at this early stage.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright then noted two significant developments that occurred after Plaintiff filed his most recent amendment: the North Dakota federal court reopened the 2014 case (after the SSA itself moved to reopen it), and the SSA offered Plaintiff a deal under which a Social Security judge would reverse the 2020 benefits suspension. Because these developments may affect what Plaintiff actually needs from this lawsuit, the court ordered Plaintiff to file either a Third Amended Complaint reflecting these new facts or a voluntary dismissal of the case within 21 days. The defendants' request for a deadline extension to file their answer was partially granted, tying their new deadline to whenever Plaintiff files his Third Amended Complaint, if he does so.
The detailed version
- Smuda v. Marten, No. 25-cv-01146 (ECW)
- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- July 31, 2025
Background and Claims Plaintiff Ricky A. S. (identified only by first name and last initial, consistent with how the court styled the case) sued Lynn Marten and Frank Bisignano (sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration). Plaintiff seeks reinstatement and repayment of Social Security benefits. The SSA suspended his benefits and sought repayment of overpayments — first in connection with his commitment to the North Dakota Sex Offender Program (a civil commitment, not a criminal sentence), and then again in August 2020 after he transitioned to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The SSA's stated basis for the 2020 suspension was that Plaintiff was 'imprisoned for the Conviction of a Crime.' Plaintiff disputes this characterization, asserting he is civilly committed, not imprisoned following a criminal conviction, and that the suspension was therefore improper.
This case is also linked to a prior federal lawsuit — Ricky A. S. v. Astrue, No. 14-cv-00141 (D.N.D.) (the 'North Dakota action') — in which the North Dakota federal court had remanded Plaintiff's earlier Social Security challenge back to the SSA in 2015. That case remained inactive for nearly a decade. Plaintiff sought to reopen it in January 2025; the North Dakota court denied that request in January 2025. Plaintiff then filed the instant Minnesota case, in part to reopen the North Dakota action.
Motions to Amend Plaintiff filed three successive motions to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
First Motion to Amend (Dkt. 4): Denied. Two independent grounds supported denial: (1) the motion lacked Plaintiff's signature, violating Rule 11(a), which requires pro se (self-represented) parties to sign all filings; and (2) neither the motion nor the proposed amended complaint was 'complete in itself' as required by District of Minnesota Local Rule 15.1(a) — instead, Plaintiff's submission only revised portions of his original complaint rather than providing a standalone document.
Second Motion to Amend (Dkt. 5): Denied as moot, because the court granted the Third Motion to Amend.
Third Motion to Amend (Dkt. 10): Granted in part, denied in part. The court accepted the proposed Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 10-1) as the operative pleading. The court applied the Rule 15(a)(2) standard, which directs courts to 'freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,' and found: no undue delay; no bad faith; no unfair prejudice to Defendants (who had not yet filed an answer or the Certified Administrative Record); and that the question of futility (whether the claims could survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)) was better addressed later if Defendants chose to file such a motion. The motion was otherwise denied.
Subsequent Developments After Plaintiff filed his Third Motion to Amend, two significant events occurred:
- On May 30, 2025, the SSA moved to reopen the North Dakota action; the North Dakota court granted that motion on June 23,
- The court noted this may render moot Plaintiff's effort in the instant case to reopen the North Dakota action.
- On July 25, 2025, Defendants filed a 'Request for Extension of Time to Answer' (Dkt. 13) disclosing that the SSA had offered Plaintiff a stipulation (agreement) for remand to the SSA so that an Administrative Law Judge (a government hearing officer) would reverse the 2020 suspension of Plaintiff's benefits. Defendants requested Plaintiff respond to that offer by August 15, 2025.
Court's Orders Given these developments, the court found it unclear whether Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this lawsuit. The court ordered Plaintiff to file, within 21 days of July 31, 2025, either: (a) A Third Amended Complaint reflecting the current status of the North Dakota case and the SSA's proposed stipulation for remand, or (b) A voluntary dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
The court reminded Plaintiff — who is proceeding pro se (without a lawyer) — that any amended complaint must comply with federal and local rules, including the requirement that it be complete in itself without incorporating by reference other filings.
Defendants' Request for Extension of Time to Answer was denied insofar as Defendants sought a specific extension to September 9, 2025, but granted insofar as their deadline to file an answer and/or Certified Administrative Record is extended to 21 days after Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (if any) is filed.
Defendant Substitution Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Frank Bisignano was automatically substituted as the defendant in place of prior acting Commissioner Leland Dudek (and previously Martin O'Malley), as Bisignano became Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.