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)

Download PDF
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

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?