Edwards v. Jonas et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATING HEARING by Hon. William Alsup granting 22 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.(whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/10/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARK THOMAS EDWARDS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-04788 WHA

v.
PATRICIA JONAS, et al.

14

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
VACATING HEARING

Defendants.
/

15
16

In this social security appeal, defendant moves to dismiss because pro se plaintiff Mark

17

Edwards has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, depriving the district court of subject-

18

matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.1

19

The Social Security Act permits claimants to challenge a denial of social security benefits

20

after a “final decision” is rendered by the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. 405(g). A decision is final

21

only after plaintiff presents the claim to the Commissioner and exhausts his administrative

22

remedies. Johnson v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1993). The Social Security regulations

23

provide the following administrative appeals process: (1) an initial determination; (2)

24

reconsideration of the initial determination; (3) a hearing before an administrative law judge; and

25

(4) review of the administrative law judge's decision by an Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R.

26

404.900(a)(1)-(4). The regulations also state: “[w]hen you have completed the steps of the

27
28
1

Plaintiff has filed his complaint against various regional officers of the Social Security Administration
(Dkt. No. 1). The proper defendant in a social security appeal, however, is the Commissioner of Social
Security. 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 902. Thus, this order will construe plaintiff’s appeal accordingly.

1

administrative review process listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this subsection, we

2

will have made our final decision. If you are dissatisfied with our final decision, you may

3

request judicial review by filing an action in a Federal district court [within 60 sixty days of

4

receiving notice of the decision].” Id. at 404.900(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 405(g).2

5

Here, plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not request a

6

hearing before an administrative law judge or review by the Appeals Council (Weigel Decl. at

7

2–3). Plaintiff has also not established sufficient grounds for judicial waiver of the exhaustion

8

requirement because his action is “bound up” and therefore not “collateral” to his claim for

9

benefits. In addition, plaintiff received a partially-favorable determination at the reconsideration
stage (which he pursued after filing this action), so he likely does not satisfy the irreparability

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

requirement for judicial waiver as well (Weigel Decl., Exh. A). Johnson, 2 F.3d at 921–23.

12

Therefore, plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and this Court has no

13

subject-matter jurisdiction to review plaintiff’s social security appeal.

14

Plaintiff also raises other claims in his social security appeal. His only other federal

15

claim, which is based on the “Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman Act,” is meritless. As

16

explained in a previous order, the Whistleblower Protection Act only applies to previous,

17

current, or potential employees of the government. 5 U.S.C. 2302. Plaintiff does not claim to be

18

any of those things. Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish federal jurisdiction over his

19

remaining state-law claims and this order declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

20

state-law claims. Sopcak v. Northern Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th

21

Cir.1995); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendant’s motion to

22

dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is GRANTED. The motion hearing is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: April 10, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2

The regulation itself uses the words, “you” and “your.” Determinations, Administrative Review
Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions, 20 C.F.R. 404.900 (2013).

2