Hansen v. Social Security Administration

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

GREGG HANSEN,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

9
10

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Docket No. 6

Defendant.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 17-cv-03432-EMC

Plaintiff Gregg Hansen is a recipient of Social Security Insurance (“SSI”) benefits. In

13
14

March 2017, after mail from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) was returned

15

undelivered, the agency notified Hansen that it was going to suspend his SSI payments because it

16

needed correct contact information. Hansen initially failed to respond, and the SSA suspended his

17

payments in April 2017. Docket No. 6-1 (“Ly Decl.”) at 2. Hansen subsequently contacted the

18

SSA and submitted updated information. The SSA resumed Hansen‟s SSI payments effective

19

June 2017. Id. On May 4, 2017, Hansen filed a civil action against SSA in Marin County

20

Superior Court challenging the agency‟s alleged “non payment of agreed disability payments.”

21

Docket No. 1. The agency then removed the action to this Court and filed the instant motion to

22

dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.1 Docket No. 6.
“Cases arising under the Social Security Act generally are not subject to review unless they

23
24

challenge a „final decision of the Secretary made after a [statutorily mandated] hearing.‟” Dexter

25

v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108

26

(1977)) (alteration in original). To challenge a determination regarding eligibility to SSI, amount

27
28

1

Hansen did not file any response to the government‟s motion to dismiss.

1

of SSI, or a suspension of SSI, a claimant must request a reconsideration determination. 20 C.F.R.

2

§ 416.1402(a), (b), § 416.1407. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the reconsideration

3

determination, he or she must then request an administrative law judge hearing. 20 C.F.R. §§

4

416.1429, 416.1430. An administrative law judge will then issue a decision. 20 C.F.R. §

5

416.1453. If the claimant is dissatisfied with that decision, he or she must request review by the

6

Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1467. Only after a final decision by the Appeals Council (or a

7

decision by that body declining further review) may a claimant file a civil action in federal court.

8

Here, Hansen did not avail himself of this administrative process before filing the present

9

action in state court. Because Hansen did not exhaust his administrative remedies, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear his claim. Dexter, 731 F.3d at 980. For that reason, the Court GRANTS the

11

government‟s motion and dismisses this action with prejudice.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

This order disposes of Docket No. 6.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: July 24, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2