Billy Johnson v. Kilolo Kijakazi, No. 21-1820 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Grasz, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Dismissal of pro se action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affirmed, as there was not a final administrative decision in the matter and plaintiff did not seek to order the Commissioner to perform a clear, non-discretionary duty. [ August 20, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1820 ___________________________ Billy Ray Johnson lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Kilolo Kijakazi,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________ Submitted: August 18, 2021 Filed: August 23, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Kilolo Kijakazi has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Billy Johnson appeals the district court’s2 dismissal of his pro se action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, see ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review), we affirm. We agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as Johnson’s action did not appeal a final administrative decision or seek to order the Commissioner to perform a clear, non-discretionary duty, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 405(h) (limiting judicial review to Commissioner’s final decision after administrative law judge hearing); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus jurisdiction); and as review of the state’s child support orders was precluded by the Rooker-Feldman3 doctrine, see Hageman v. Barton, 817 F.3d 611, 614 (8th Cir. 2016) (under Rooker-Feldman, lower federal courts lack jurisdiction over actions seeking review of, or relief from, state court judgments). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Johnson’s motion for default judgment. See Weitz Co. LLC v. MacKenzie House, LLC, 665 F.3d 970, 977 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 3 See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
