King v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 16 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

HENRY KING,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

12
13

No. C-13-2079 EMC

(Docket No. 16)
Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 7, 2013, challenging the termination of his Social

17

Security benefits. Docket No. 1. Defendant has now filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject

18

matter jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff’s suit is premature because he has not yet exhausted his

19

administrative remedies. Docket No. 16. His time to respond having passed, Plaintiff has filed no

20

opposition to the motion. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument

21

and VACATES the hearing set for September 5, 2013.

22

The Court previously considered this exact issue in King v. Colvin (King I), 13-cv-1897-

23

EMC, Docket No. 32. In that case, filed April 25, 2013, Plaintiff raised substantially identical

24

objections to a the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) termination of his benefits. Though

25

Plaintiff’s pro se filings are in places unintelligible, both suits appear to be challenging the same

26

action taken by SSA to terminate his benefits.

27
28

As Defendant pointed out in King I, however, Plaintiff may not initiate suit challenging
SSA’s termination of his benefits at this time because he has not yet exhausted his administrative

1

remedies. The Social Security Act provides that an individual may seek review of a denial of

2

benefits after a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Any

3

individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to

4

which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such

5

decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days”). The Act does not permit courts to review

6

actions taken by the Commissioner prior to the issuance of a final decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“No

7

findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by any person,

8

tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided.”); Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139,

9

1144 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The Social Security Act grants to district courts jurisdiction to review only
“final decisions” of the Commissioner.”).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The regulations implementing the Social Security Act provide for a four step administrative

12

review process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). These steps are (1) an initial determination about

13

eligibility; (2) reconsideration of the initial determination; (3) a hearing before an administrative law

14

judge; and (4) review by the Social Security Appeals Council. Id. It is only after completing all of

15

these steps that the Commissioner’s decision is “final” and the individual may seek judicial review

16

of that decision. Id. Thus, Plaintiff cannot bring suit in this Court until he has had a hearing before

17

an administrative law judge, and then a review by the Social Security Appeals Counsel.

18

As this Court previously recognized in King I, Plaintiff has requested a hearing before an

19

administrative law judge challenging the termination of his benefits. King I, 13-cv-1897-EMC,

20

Docket No. 32 at 2. This hearing is currently set for August 29, 2013. Id. Plaintiff has therefore not

21

yet exhausted his administrative remedies, and may not request review of the SSA’s determination

22

by this Court at this time. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED, and this case is

23

DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dismissal is without prejudice to

24

Plaintiff’s right to seek judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner once he has

25

exhausted his administrative remedies.

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1
2

This order disposes of Docket No. 16. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment
in accordance with this order and close the file in this case.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: August 20, 2013

7
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3