Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01402-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OTHMAN M. HAMED, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1402-EFB 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security (“Commissioner”) that plaintiff was overpaid disability benefits.1 The Commissioner 

moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff failed 

to exhaust his administrative remedies.2

 ECF No. 15. For the following reasons, the motion is 

granted. 

I. Background 

 On July 24, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and disability 

insurance benefits (“DIB”). Declaration of Howard Kelly, ECF No. 22-1 (“Kelly Decl.”) at 2, 

 1

 This action is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent. ECF Nos. 7, 9; 

see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

2

 Although the Commissioner brought her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

(“Rule”) 12(b)(6), she argues that court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 15. 

Accordingly, the court construes the motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). 

Case 2:14-cv-01402-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Ex. 1. On January 4, 2013, the Commissioner sent plaintiff a notice of award, finding that 

plaintiff was disabled beginning September 1, 2011. Id. at 2-3, Ex. 2. The notice further 

provided that under the applicable rules plaintiff had to be disabled for five full calendar months 

in a row before he could receive benefits. Therefore, as explained in the notice, the first month he 

was entitled to receive benefits was February 2012. Id. 

On June 3, 2014, the SSA sent plaintiff a notice of change of benefits. That notice stated 

that plaintiff was not entitled to any of the payments he received between February 2012 and May 

2014, and as a result he was overpaid $25,106 in benefits.3 Id. at Ex. 3. This notice informed 

plaintiff that if he disagreed with the decision he could request reconsideration. Id. Plaintiff filed 

a request for reconsideration on June 5, 2014. Id. at Ex. 4a. He also requested a waiver of the 

overpayment. Id. at Ex. 4b. Plaintiff then initiated this action on June 11, 2014. ECF No. 1. 

 The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) subsequently sent plaintiff another notice of 

change of benefits, notifying him that since the SSA was able to stop his June 2014 payment he 

only owes $24,193 for overpayments. ECF No. 22-1 at Ex. 5b. This notice again informed 

plaintiff that he had the right to seek reconsideration of the decision. Id. The SSA also sent 

plaintiff a letter confirming that it had received his request to waive the overpayment, and that he 

would be contacted later concerning his request. Id. at Ex. 5a. Plaintiff then filed another request 

for reconsideration. Id. at Ex. 6a. The SSA responded by letter, notifying plaintiff that it had 

received his “request for an explanation” and that it would contact plaintiff “later concerning this 

request.” Id. at 3, Ex. 6b. 

 A “Report of Contact,” dated June 19, 2014, indicates that the initial medical decision 

finding that plaintiff was disabled needed to be reopened, apparently due to continuing disability 

review which found that plaintiff had been engaged in substantial gainful work activity during the 

five month waiting period. That report stated that plaintiff’s claim should be transferred to the 

state Disability Determination Services (“DDS”) that made the initial disability determination. 

 3

 The record indicates that a continuing disability review determined that plaintiff was not 

entitled to benefits due to engaging in substantial gainful activity during the five month period 

after his disability onset date. See ECF No. 22-1 at Ex. 7. 

Case 2:14-cv-01402-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 6
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 

3

ECF No. 22-1 at 35 (Ex. 7). On September 17, 2014, the state DDS made a revised initial 

decision, finding that plaintiff was disabled beginning March 25, 2012. Id. at 37 (Ex. 7). 

However, in his declaration, Howard Kelly4 explains that to date plaintiff’s claim has not been 

fully processed. Id. at 3. 

II. Discussion 

 Defendant argues that this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. ECF No. 

15 at 2-3. 

 As a sovereign, the United States is immune from suit except according to its consent to 

be sued. Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981). It necessarily follows where Congress 

waives the immunity of the United States any terms and conditions that it places on the waiver are 

jurisdictional and must be strictly construed. See Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. 

and School Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983); Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 

1992). 

 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity by permitting district 

courts to review a “final decision” of the Commissioner of Social Security.5

 A claimant may 

obtain a final decision from the Commissioner only by proceeding through all stages of the 

administrative appeals process. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 482 (1986). The 

stages of the appeals process consists of: 1) initial determination; 2) reconsideration; 3) hearing 

before an ALJ; and 4) Appeals Council review. Only upon the Appeals Council issuing a 

decision or declining review may a claimant seek review in a federal district court. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.981. 

 4

 Howard Kelly is the Acting Chief of Court Case Preparation and Review Branch 1 of the 

Office of Appellate Operations, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Social Security 

Administration. 

5

 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides in pertinent part: “Any individual, after any final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective 

of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced 

within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as 

the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.” 

Case 2:14-cv-01402-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 6
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 

4

 The exhaustion requirement, however, may be waived where the claim is “(1) collateral to 

a substantive claim of entitlement (collaterality), (2) colorable in its showing that denial of relief 

will cause irreparable harm (irreparability), and (3) one whose resolution would not serve the 

purposes of exhaustion (futility).” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). All 

three factors must be established to waive the exhaustion requirement. Kaiser v. Blue Cross of 

California, 347 F.3d 1107, 1115 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 The record before the court demonstrates that plaintiff failed to obtain complete 

administrative review prior to initiating this action. Although plaintiff did file a request for 

reconsideration of the initial decision on June 5, 2015, he filed this action less than a week later, 

thereby failing to give the SSA an adequate opportunity to process and review his request. 

Furthermore, the declaration of Howard Kelly establishes that the initial disability determination 

has been reopened, that a revised disability determination has been made, and that plaintiff’s 

claim is still being processed. ECF No. 22-1 at 3, 35-37 (Ex. 7). Thus, the record conclusively 

shows that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrate remedies prior to seeking relief in this court. 

 Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to obtain complete administrative review. Instead, 

plaintiff attempts to characterizes his Social Security appeal, stating that “this case is a civil rights 

case in which the United States Government waived its immunity” and that this action is not “an 

administrative matter.” ECF No. 23 at 2.6 The complaint does allege that plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights were violated by termination of his disability benefits. ECF No. 1 at 4. He 

further alleges that the termination of his benefits “amounts to discrimination” since the benefits 

were abruptly terminated, which has endangered his financial situation.7 Id. at 5. But 

 6

 Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition and a sur-reply to the motion to dismiss. ECF 

Nos. 18, 23. Although plaintiff was not authorized to file these pleading, the court has considered 

these documents in adjudicating defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

 7

 In his opposition, plaintiff describes the instant action as “a Jewish spying case.” ECF 

No. 17 at 4. Plaintiff, who identifies himself as Palestinian, claims that individuals of Jewish 

ancestry were behind the decision to terminate his benefits. He claims that he “has suffered in at 

[sic] least 200 cases of Jewish discrimination, targeting, and spying in the past 39 years.” Id. at 4. 

In short, plaintiff’s complaint is replete with anti-Semitic remarks and allegations that Jewish 

individuals conspired against him to terminate his disability benefits. See generally ECF No. 17. 

Aside from the fact that these allegations are not included in the complaint, such allegations are 

Case 2:14-cv-01402-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

notwithstanding his references to alleged constitutional violations and discrimination, it is clear 

from his complaint that plaintiff seeks to challenge the decision to terminate his benefits. Section 

405(g) provides the exclusive jurisdictional basis for review of such administrative actions, and 

administrative exhaustion is necessary. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (a civil action may be brought only 

after the Commissioner has made a final decision on the claim); 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“[n]o finding 

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

tribunal, or government agency except as herein provided.”). 

 Plaintiff further argues that he was prevented from challenging the initial decision 

terminating his benefits. ECF No. 17 at 7-8. This contention is belied by the timing of this 

action, and the evidence before the court. As indicated above, the decision to terminate plaintiff’s 

employment and recoup overpayment was issued on June 3, 2014. ECF No. 22-1 at Ex. 3. 

Plaintiff filed his first request for reconsideration on June 5, 2014. Id. at Ex. 4a. However, 

instead of waiting to hear back from the SSA, plaintiff filed this action on June 11, 2014, less than 

a week later. ECF No. 1. Thus, plaintiff did not even attempt to exhaust his administrative 

remedies prior to initiating this action. Furthermore, Mr. Kelly’s declaration demonstrates that 

state DDS reopened the prior initial decision, and issued a revised decision. ECF No. 22-1 at 37. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s contention that he was precluded from challenging the decision to 

terminate his benefits lacks merit. 

 Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim(s), and the 

instant action must there be dismissed. 

IV. Conclusion 

 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and 

///// 

 

frivolous because they lack even “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” and appear 

“fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989). 

Accordingly, even if the allegations in plaintiff’s opposition were alleged in the complaint, 

plaintiff would not be entitled to relief. 

Case 2:14-cv-01402-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/29/15 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 

DATED: September 29, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01402-EFB Document 25 Filed 09/29/15 Page 6 of 6