Battles el v. Berryhill

Filing 20

ORDER Granting 16 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's preliminary request for injunctive relief signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (KMP)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

TAMARA ALISHA BATTLES EL,
Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. C17-1383-MAT

v.
ORDER RE: PENDING MOTION

12

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

13
Defendant.
14
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

15
16

Plaintiff Tamara Battles el, proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the Ninth

17

Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff seeks review of a final decision of the

18

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying plaintiff’s claim

19

for disability benefits and preliminary injunctive relief while the challenge to the

20

Commissioner’s decision is under review. (Dkt. 2.) Because it lacked original jurisdiction to

21

review the Commissioner’s decision, the Ninth Circuit transferred the complaint to this Court.

22

(Dkt. 1.) The Commissioner filed both an answer to the complaint and a motion to dismiss the

23

request for preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

(Dkts. 16-17.) Having now considered the request for preliminary injunctive relief and the

2

Commissioner’s motion to dismiss, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days”). Section 405(g) “clearly limits judicial

8

review to a particular type of agency action, a ‘final decision of the Secretary made after a

9

hearing.’” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-08 (1977). Section 405(g) further serves as the

10

exclusive jurisdictional basis for review of administrative decisions concerning claims for

11

benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. and 1381 et

12

seq. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“The findings and decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

13

after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No

14

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

15

person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided.”); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422

16

U.S. 749, 757 (1975) (section 405(h) prevents “review of decisions of the Secretary save as

17

provided in the Act, which provision is made in § 405(g).”)

18

In considering a denial of Social Security disability benefits under § 405(g), this Court

19

has the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming,

20

modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without

21

remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court specifically considers

22

whether the Commissioner’s decision has the support of substantial evidence. Id. See also

23

Penny v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1993).

ORDER
PAGE - 2

The Court makes that decision with

1

consideration of the administrative record and the briefing submitted by the parties in accordance

2

with the Court’s Scheduling Order. (See Dkt. 19.)

3

Plaintiff here seeks both a reversal of the final decision denying her applications for

4

disability benefits and preliminary injunctive relief through an award and immediate payment of

5

Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI while the petition for review of the final decision

6

is under review. (See Dkt. 2 at 15.) However, as set forth above, this Court’s jurisdiction is

7

limited to consideration of the Commissioner’s final decision denying plaintiff’s claim for

8

disability benefits, and to an award of relief in the form of a decision affirming, modifying, or

9

reversing that final decision. A determination and any award of relief will follow consideration

10

of the administrative record and the parties’ briefing addressing the Commissioner’s final

11

decision. Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief is, as such, both premature and

12

outside the scope of relief available in this matter. Cf. Walker v. Colvin, No. 5:13-cv-01762-

13

EJD, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151111 at *6-8 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) (“The limited waiver of

14

sovereign immunity designated by the Act means that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

15

over any of Plaintiff’s claims or requests for relief premised on something other than judicial

16

review of the ALJ’s decision as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This would include any request

17

for a protective order or injunction considering such relief falls outside of the scope of what can

18

be awarded against Defendant.”; dismissing claim requesting, inter alia, injunctive relief and tort

19

recovery where plaintiff did not challenge final agency decision and had not exhausted

20

administrative remedies prior to filing).

21

The Court, in sum, agrees with the Commissioner that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief

22

at issue and herein GRANTS the motion to dismiss the request for preliminary injunctive relief

23

(Dkt. 16). The Court will address plaintiff’s challenge to the Commissioner’s final decision

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1
2

denying benefits following consideration of the parties’ briefing on the merits.
DATED this 10th day of January, 2018.

3

A

4

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER
PAGE - 4