Hudson v. Bisignano

── Hudson v. Bisignano ── Case No.: 25-3133 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 16, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3133 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MICHAEL A. HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-3133 (D.C. No. 2:25-CV-02151-JWL) FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of (D. Kan.) Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Michael A. Hudson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his claims against the Commissioner of Social Security. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Hudson’s claims. Mr. Hudson is a veteran being treated for multiple health conditions. He filed for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in October 2021. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied the application, and Mr. Hudson then sought After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-3133 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 2 review of the SSA’s decision in federal district court. The district court affirmed the decision and entered judgment in August 2024. Mr. Hudson filed two appeals with this court, both of which were dismissed for failure to prosecute. He then filed his complaint in this case, claiming that certain issues were not addressed in his previous district court case. He also sought the return of money paid under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), as well as compensatory and punitive damages against the Commissioner. The Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. First, it held that to the extent Mr. Hudson is seeking review of the previous district court decision, it was “without jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court, even of another district court in this district.” R. at 57. And having failed to prosecute his Tenth Circuit appeals, “he cannot now claim review of any of the facts and issues in that case.” Id. Second, the district court held that Mr. Hudson had not identified any constitutional or statutory bases for claiming the return of taxes paid under FICA, and the court was aware of none. Finally, the district court agreed with the Commissioner’s argument that sovereign immunity barred the claims for compensatory and punitive damages. Mr. Hudson filed a timely appeal from the district court’s order. “Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be