Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00659/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00659-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 10cv659

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUU THANH TRAN, MANH THI

NGUYEN, CHEO VIET CAM, CUONG

CHI TANG,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-CV-659-H (POR)

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS; AND

[Doc. No. 15.]

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

AMEND

[Doc. No. 23.]

vs.

MICHAEL S. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

On March 26, 2010, Plaintiffs Huu Thanh Tran, Manh Thi Nguyen, Cheo Viet Cam and

Cuong Chi Tang filed a complaint in this case against Defendant Michael S. Astrue,

Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 28, 2010, Defendant filed a motion

to dismiss. (Doc. No. 15.) On August 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to

the motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 17.) On August 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave

to amend the complaint. (Doc. No. 23.) The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Civil Local

Rule 7.1(d), determines this matter to be appropriate for resolution without oral argument,

submits it on the parties’ papers, and vacates the hearing set for September 7, 2010. For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and DENIES Plaintiffs’

motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

Case 3:10-cv-00659-H-POR Document 25 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 5
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 - 10cv659

Background

On March 26, 2010, Plaintiffs Huu Thanh Tran, Manh Thi Nguyen, Cheo Viet Cam and

Cuong Chi Tang filed a complaint in this case against Defendant Michael S. Astrue,

Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that they are disabled and

applied for Social Security benefits under Title II and/or Title VII of the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (Id.) On June 28, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs’ complaint under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 15.) Defendant’s motion indicates that Plaintiffs’ cases

are still pending at the ALJ level or on reconsideration. (Doc. No. 15-2, Exs. 1-4.) 

Discussion

I. Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a court to dismiss claims over

which it lacks proper subject matter jurisdiction. When ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, the court may accept and evaluate evidence beyond the

complaint without having to convert the motion into one for summary judgment. Safe Air for

Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004); Savage v. Glendale Union High

Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). The court “need not presume the truthfulness

of the plaintiffs’ allegations” and may examine disputed facts to determine whether subject

matter jurisdiction exists. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000); Thornhill Publ’g

Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979) (“No presumptive

truthfulness attaches to plaintiff’s allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will

not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.”).

“When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1), the

plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the motion.” Tosco Corp.

v. Cmtys. for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (abrogated on other grounds

by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181 (2010)). 

II. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies 

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Case 3:10-cv-00659-H-POR Document 25 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 5
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 - 10cv659

on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, because none of

the Plaintiffs have completed the administrative process and obtained final decisions from the

Commissioner. (Doc. No. 15.) Specifically, Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiffs Tran,

Cam and Tan’s cases are currently pending at the ALJ level. (Doc. No. 15-2, Exs. 1, 3, 4.)

Defendant also presents evidence that Plaintiff Nguyen’s case is currently pending at the

reconsideration level. (Id. Ex. 2.) 

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 (1994); Cato

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 1995). 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 alterations and quotation omitted). Plaintiff

suing the United States “bears the burden of pointing to such an unequivocal waiver of

immunity.” Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983). Sovereign immunity

extends to the Social Security Administration and its employees. See Kaiser v. Blue Cross of

Cal., 347 F.3d 1107, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The United States, including its agencies and its

employees, can be sued only to the extent that it has expressly waived its sovereign

immunity.”); Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The doctrine of sovereign

immunity applies to federal agencies and to federal employees acting within their official

capacities.”). The Social Security Act allows only a narrow waiver of sovereign immunity by

providing for limited judicial review of the Commissioner’s “final decisions” made after a

hearing. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), (h); see also Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 424

(1988) (noting social security claimant is entitled to judicial review of denial of claim after

exhausting administrative remedies). Section 405 requires that a plaintiff obtain a final

decision from the Commissioner before obtaining judicial review:

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 3:10-cv-00659-H-POR Document 25 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 5
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 - 10cv659

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as ... provided [in

section 405].” Id. § 405(h). To obtain a final decision from the Commissioner, a claimant

must complete all stages of the administrative appeals process. Bowen v. City of New York,

476 U.S. 467, 482 (1986). The administrative process consists of (1) an initial determination;

(2) reconsideration; (3) hearing before an administrative law judge; (4) Appeals Council

review. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.900. A claimant may file an action in federal court only after the

Appeals Council issues a decision or denies review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. 

In their response in opposition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant

refused to process their cases after Plaintiffs failed or refused to submit to medical

examinations. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiffs argue that such refusal constitutes “final decision”

denying benefits which in turn gives this Court the jurisdiction over the case. (Id. at 10.)

Plaintiffs argue that their claims have been “indefinitely delayed to the point that a

presumption of a ‘final decision’ could be made, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” (Id. at 6.)

The Court notes that Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to show that they have

completed the administrative process and obtained final decisions from the Commissioner, as

required by section 405(g). Indeed, Plaintiffs do not dispute that their claims are currently

pending at the ALJ and reconsideration level. (See Doc. No. 17 at 2, 6.) Viewing the facts in

the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and liberally construing the complaint, the Court

concludes that Plaintiffs did not bring this action to challenge a “final decision” pursuant to

§ 405(g). See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. Because Plaintiffs have not exhausted

their administrative remedies before filing suit, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction

over Plaintiffs’ claims. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

III. Motion to Amend

On August 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint under the

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to add five new plaintiffs and class action allegations.

Case 3:10-cv-00659-H-POR Document 25 Filed 08/12/10 Page 4 of 5
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

 All hearing dates for any matters on which a ruling is required must be obtained from

the clerk of the judge to whom the case is assigned. CivLR 7.1(b). 

- 5 - 10cv659

(Doc. No. 23.) The Court notes that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules.1

In any event, the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative

remedies. As a result, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint

for failure to exhaust. 

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss the

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

amend the complaint. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2010

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:10-cv-00659-H-POR Document 25 Filed 08/12/10 Page 5 of 5