(SS) Celedon v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
31
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 1/27/2025. Show Cause Response due within fourteen (14) days. (Deputy Clerk AML)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
MARY ANN CELEDON,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,1
12
Defendant.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00477-CDB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
(Doc. 1)
14-Day Deadline
13
14
15
I.
BACKGROUND
16
On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff Mary Ann Celedon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint pursuant
17
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) seeking review of the decision of the
18
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application for
19
benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleged the “Notice of Appeals Council
20
dated February 14, 2021 gave plaintiff an additional 30 days, plus five (5) days for delivery by
21
mail, to file a Civil Action,” such that her complaint was timely. (Id. at 1-2).
22
On February 14, 2022, the Commissioner lodged the Administrative Record (“AR”) and
23
an accompanying certification that it was a “full and accurate transcript of the entire record of
24
proceedings relating to this case.” (Docs. 12, 12-1). However, on July 12, 2022, the
25
1
26
27
28
On January 21, 2025, Michelle King was named Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration. See https://www.ssa.gov/agency.commissioner/ (last visited January 23,
2025). She therefore is substituted as the Defendant in this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (“the person holding the
Office of the Commissioner shall, in [their] official capacity, be the proper defendant.”).
1
Commissioner lodged a supplement and certification indicating that certain exhibits were omitted
2
in the initial filing. (Docs. 20, 20-1). After submission of the supplement, the parties submitted
3
their briefs (Docs. 22, 25).2 In her brief, Plaintiff asserts that the “Appeals Council denied
4
Plaintiff’s request for review.” (Doc. 22 at 2). However, Plaintiff fails to cite any portion of the
5
record in support of this assertion. (Id.).
6
The Court’s review of the record reveals only a single communication from the Appeals
7
Council relevant to the ALJ decision at issue. In an April 13, 2021 letter to Plaintiff’s
8
representative, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for more time to file a civil action,
9
explaining:
Under our rules, we may extend the time to file a civil action if you
have a good reason for filing late.
10
11
You stated that you could not file on time because you are in the
process of securing an attorney for the claimant’s appeal in federal
court. However, you did not appeal the unfavorable February 6,
2020 decision to the Appeals Council. Therefore, you do not have
appeal rights to federal court and we have denied your request for
more time.
12
13
14
15
(AR 5199).
16
II.
17
Federal courts have “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
DISCUSSION
18
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
19
546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the
20
court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” Id. at 506.
21
The Social Security Act Provides that “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the
22
Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, … may obtain
23
review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
24
Whether a decision is final for purposes of § 405(g) is governed by the Social Security
25
Administration’s regulations. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106. The regulations set out a four-
26
step administrative review process: 1) initial determination; 2) reconsideration; 3) hearing before
27
28
2
Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all proceedings
in this action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 11).
2
1
an ALJ; and 4) Appeals Council review. 20 C.F.R. § 414.1400(a). The Commissioner’s decision
2
is final when a claimant has “completed the steps of the administrative review process.” 20
3
C.F.R. § 414.1400(a)(5). However, “[i]f a claimant fails to request review from the Council,
4
there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases.” Sims, 530 U.S. at
5
107.
6
Here, there is no evidence in the record to support that Plaintiff sought review by the
7
Appeals Council. As discussed, the only communication from the Appeals Council relevant to
8
the ALJ decision at issue explicitly stated Plaintiff did not seek the Council’s review. (AR 5199).
9
Under Sims, this failure deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims.
10
III.
11
Accordingly, within 14 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show
12
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
13
And it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the date of this order, the
14
Commissioner SHALL certify that the record before the Court is complete, specifically with
15
respect to any decision or communications from the Appeals Council in this matter.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
January 27, 2025
___________________
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?