Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02940/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02940-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1 

16cv02940 JAH-WVG 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH MARTIN GARDNER, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16cv02940 JAH-WVG 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 8] 

BACKGROUND 

On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint for social 

security benefits. He alleges the Social Security Commissioner terminated his claim 

following a decision by the Social Security Appeals Council. He further alleges the 

Commissioner ignored evidence he submitted to the Appeals Council demonstrating the 

Administrative law Judge denied him due process, and, thereby, unlawfully denied him 

social security benefits. He seeks an award of social security benefits, damages for the 

unlawful denial of benefits, damages for discrimination and harassment, injunctive relief 

and restitution, and fees and costs. 

Following service of summons and the complaint, Defendant filed a motion to 

dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion and Defendant filed a reply. Upon a 

Case 3:16-cv-02940-JAH-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

16cv02940 JAH-WVG 

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

thorough review of the parties’ submissions, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court 

GRANTS the motion without prejudice to Plaintiff amending his complaint to assert a 

claim for final review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying benefits. 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant seeks dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

failure to state a claim. 

I. Legal Standard

A. Rule 12(b)(1) 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a defendant may seek to dismiss a 

complaint for “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). 

When considering a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the district court “is free to hear evidence 

regarding jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving factual disputes 

where necessary.” Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). “In 

such circumstances, ‘[n]o presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff’s allegations, and 

the existence of disputed facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the 

merits of jurisdictional claims.’” Id. (quoting Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General 

Telephone & Electronic Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979)). Plaintiff, as the party 

seeking to invoke jurisdiction, has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. See 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of the 

complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted 

under Rule 12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. 

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); see Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis 

of a dispositive issue of law.”). Alternatively, a complaint may be dismissed where it 

presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts under that theory. 

Robertson, 749 F.2d at 534. While a plaintiff need not give “detailed factual allegations,” 

Case 3:16-cv-02940-JAH-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

16cv02940 JAH-WVG 

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

he must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). “To survive a motion 

to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A claim is facially plausible when the factual 

allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other words, “the nonconclusory ‘factual content,’ and 

reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling 

the plaintiff to relief. Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and 

common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 

In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the 

truth of all factual allegations and must construe all inferences from them in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); 

Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). However, legal 

conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual 

allegations. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003); Western Mining 

Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, 

the Court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the 

complaint, documents relied upon but not attached to the complaint when authenticity is 

not contested, and matters of which the Court takes judicial notice. Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). If a court determines that a complaint fails 

to state a claim, the court should grant leave to amend unless it determines that the pleading 

could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. See Doe v. United States, 58 

F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995). 

// 

// 

Case 3:16-cv-02940-JAH-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

16cv02940 JAH-WVG 

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

II. Analysis

 Defendant argues the Social Security Act bars Plaintiff’s complaint as written. She 

contends Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(1), 

but, she argues, the only colorable basis for subject matter jurisdiction is through the Social 

Security Act which waives immunity for judicial review of the Commissioner’s final 

decision. Defendant maintains Plaintiff’s claims for relief and prayers for various remedies 

must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and due to the exclusive remedy 

provided for by the Social Security Act. 

 Defendant further argues Plaintiff’s tort claims must be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. She maintains the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) provides the exclusive 

remedy for claims against the United States for torts committed by governmental 

employees in the course and scope of their employment and no suits may be maintained 

against the employees individually. She further maintains a tort claimant may not 

commence suit against the United States without first filing a claim with the appropriate 

federal agency and either receiving denial of the claim or waiting for six months without a 

final disposition. Defendant contends Plaintiff does not allege he filed a tort claim with 

any federal agency and there is no record of him doing so. In support, Defendant submits 

the declaration of Brandon Dell’Aglio, attorney and FTCA Team Leader of the Social 

Security Administration, who attests to being responsible for the maintenance of tort claims 

filed with the agency, and to finding no claim by Plaintiff after a search of their records. 

See Doc. No. 8-2. 

 In opposition, Plaintiff argues the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the 

action and he exceeds the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. He maintains any immunity has been abrogated. He also maintains he 

exhausted administrative remedies because he received a final decision from the Social 

Security Administration. 

 Defendant argues, in reply, the only waiver of immunity is for judicial review of the 

Commissioner’s final decision. As such, Defendant contends, Plaintiff may seek review 

Case 3:16-cv-02940-JAH-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

16cv02940 JAH-WVG 

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

of the final decision denying benefits and obtain only a judgment affirming, modifying, 

remanding or reversing that decision. Defendant consents to jurisdiction only to the extent 

that Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction pursuant to section 405(g) solely to seek review of the 

Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff disability benefits, and wishes to amend 

his complaint accordingly. 

 Defendant further argues Plaintiff has not filed an administration tort claim against 

the Commissioner, and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s 

tort claims. 

 The United States and its agencies have sovereign immunity from suit unless 

Congress expressly waives immunity by statute. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 

114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). The waiver must be “unequivocally expressed” 

and “not enlarged beyond what the language requires.” United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 

503 U.S. 30, 33 - 34 (1992) (internal quotation omitted). The party suing the government 

bears the burden of demonstrating an express waiver. Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 

1401 (9th Cir. 1983). The Social Security Act allows a narrow waiver of sovereign 

immunity by providing for judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decisions following 

a hearing. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), (h). As such, the Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s 

action to the extent he seeks review of the final decision denying benefits. However, the 

Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims for the additional relief sought against the 

Commissioner. While the FTCA provides a limited waiver of immunity for tortious 

conduct of employees of the government committed within the scope of their employment, 

any action under the FTCA must be brought against the United States only. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2671; FDIC v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The FTCA is the exclusive 

remedy for tortious conduct by the United States, and it only allows claims against the 

United States.”). Therefore, any FTCA claim against the Commissioner must be 

dismissed. 

Additionally, any FTCA claim against the United States is subject to dismissal. Prior 

to filing a suit under the FTCA, a claimant must submit a claim to the appropriate Federal 

Case 3:16-cv-02940-JAH-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

16cv02940 JAH-WVG 

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

agency and receive a final denial. 28 U.S.C. § 2675. The denial may be either a written 

denial or the failure of the agency to act within six months of the filing of the claim. Id. If 

this requirement is not met, a court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. See Brady v. United 

States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he filed a claim as 

required. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction for a claim brought under the FTCA. 

The Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims with the exception of a claim 

seeking review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying social security benefits. As 

such, the Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to amend to assert such a claim. All 

other claims are dismissed with prejudice and may not be reasserted in an amended 

complaint. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice to Plaintiff 

amending his complaint to assert a claim for review of the Commissioner’s final 

decision denying benefits. All claims, with the exception of a claim for review 

of the Commissioner’s final decision, are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

2. If Plaintiff wishes to amend to assert a claim for review of the Commissioner’s 

final decision denying social security benefits, he shall file a First Amended 

Complaint on or before May 7, 2018. 

Dated: March 22, 2018 

 _________________________ 

JOHN A. HOUSTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02940-JAH-WVG Document 16 Filed 03/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6