Lee v. Berryhill
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 18 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/13/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
THEODORE LEE,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 17-cv-03976-SI
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Re: Dkt. No. 18
Defendant.
12
13
On July 14, 2017, plaintiff Theodore Lee filed this pro se action seeking judicial review of
14
the Social Security Administration’s decision. Dkt. No. 1. Because the complaint did not appear
15
to state a claim, the Court ordered that plaintiff file a new complaint, which he did on July 25,
16
2017. Dkt. Nos. 5, 7.
17
Defendant then moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff has not
18
yet exhausted his administrative remedies under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 18. In support
19
of the motion, defendant has submitted the declaration of Nancy Chung. The declaration states
20
that plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on March 31, 2016, that the claim
21
was denied initially and on reconsideration, and that plaintiff then requested a hearing before an
22
Administrative Law Judge, and that the request for a hearing is still pending. Chung Decl. ¶ 3.
23
Plaintiff missed his first deadline (October 2, 2017) to oppose defendant’s motion, and the
24
Court then issued an order extending plaintiff’s deadline to November 6, 2017. Dkt. No. 20.
25
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendant’s motion.
26
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court only has jurisdiction to review “final” decisions of the
27
Social Security Administration. Here, because plaintiff is still awaiting a hearing before an
28
Administrative Law Judge, there is not a final decision for this Court to review. See 42 U.S.C.
1
§ 405(g) (providing for judicial review of “final decision” of Commissioner of Social Security);
2
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977) (explaining that judicial review of social security
3
benefits claims is limited to the Secretary’s final decision made after a hearing).
4
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion and DISMISSES THIS ACTION
5
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If plaintiff receives a final decision on his appeal that is unfavorable,
6
plaintiff may file a new action seeking review of that final decision.
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?