Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

909 F.2d 1470

Docket No. 90-5049.

Marcus v. United States

Federal Circuit

July 30, 1990.

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“has no jurisdiction ... over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant's assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Michael Gillum v. United States

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Weinberger v. Salfi · Alabama Hospital Ass'n v. United States · Alabama Hospital Ass'n v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-07-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2016

2 federal appellate ·

110199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gilbert L. Marcus, pro se.

Steven J. Gillingham, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, and Thomas W. Petersen, Asst. Director, of counsel were Donald A. Gonya, Chief Counsel, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Social Sec. Admin., A. George Lowe, Deputy Chief Counsel and Robert Crowe.

Before NIES, Chief Judge,* BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BREWSTER, Judge.…

NIES, Chief Judge.

¶1

Gilbert L. Marcus appeals from the Claims Court's order, Marcus v. United States, No. 688-89 C (December 20, 1989) (Bruggink, J.), dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although entitled a "Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Respondum", appellant seeks a reversal of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying an award of social security disability benefits. Construing appellant's pleading in a light most favorable to him, that is, as a claim for social security disability benefits, we hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1491(a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant's assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2462-2467, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); (42 U.S.C. Secs. 405(g) and (h) (1982) require that action for social security benefits must be brought in district court); cf. Alabama Hospital Ass'n v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 176, 656 F.2d 606 (1981). The judgment of the Claims Court is, therefore,

¶2

AFFIRMED.

*

Chief Judge Nies assumed the position of Chief Judge on June 27, 1990

…

Judge Rudi M. Brewster of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation

/909/f2d/1470 · .json · Public domain