Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06603/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06603-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARING PARK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. /

No. 18-06603 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

Prior orders have set forth the background of this case (see Dkt. Nos. 11, 18). In brief,

pro se plaintiff Waring Park filed the instant action seeking, as liberally construed, review of 

the Social Security Administration’s suspension of his Supplemental Security Income

payments. A prior order dated April 23 dismissed the complaint for failure to establish

jurisdiction. As that order explained, Congress has expressly provided for limited

circumstances under which an individual may bring suit against the SSA — namely, where the

Commissioner of Social Security has made a final decision (Dkt. No. 11 at 2 (quoting 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g))). The SSA’s regulations further provide that an individual seeking to contest the

SSA’s initial determination must (1) seek administrative reconsideration, (2) seek an

administrative hearing, (3) then file a request for Appeals Council review of the decision. Only

after the Appeals Council denies or grants review is the Commissioner’s final decision

judicially reviewable (id. at 3 (citing 20 C.F.R §§ 416.1407, 416.1429, 416.1467, 416.1481)). 

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 25 Filed 10/29/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

That April 23 order dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend for failure to allege

facts — even under liberal construction and giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt — that

establish a final decision by the Commissioner (ibid.). Another order dated August 20 denied

plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel and consolidation with two prior (already

dismissed) lawsuits filed before different district judges. It further gave plaintiff until

September 6 to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 18). 

Plaintiff’s recently filed amended complaint still fails to allege facts establishing

jurisdiction. Instead, it merely states, as relevant here, that “[s]uspension of payment — and

everything else — implies a final decision, because it is unlawful to suspend payment before the

conclusion of the appellate process. Payment has been suspended for over eighteen (18)

months, and therefore this Court has jurisdiction” (Dkt. No. 23 at 1). This, however, does not

establish that plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, as the SSA’s regulations require. 

There are no facts suggesting, even when liberally construed, that there exists a final decision

by the Commissioner that is judicially reviewable. Because plaintiff seems to only double

down on his insistence that such facts are sufficient to establish jurisdiction — which this order

disagrees with for the reasons stated above — the amended complaint is DISMISSED without

leave to amend. Plaintiff’s request to substitute defendants and renewed request for

appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 24) are DENIED. Judgment will follow. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-06603-WHA Document 25 Filed 10/29/19 Page 2 of 2