Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00999/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00999-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan Hernandez Sanchez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00999-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss (doc. 12), plaintiff’s

response (doc. 13), and the Commissioner’s reply (doc. 14). We also have before us

plaintiff’s motion to withdraw (doc. 15). The Commissioner did not respond.

On May 11, 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint claiming benefits under the Social

Security Act (doc. 1). The Commissioner contends that dismissal is proper under Rule

12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff has not

exhausted his administrative remedies and therefore he has not received a final decision

under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In response, plaintiff alleges that he made

a request for reconsideration. However, it is apparent that he has not received a hearing or

requested review by the Appeals Council. Although the exhaustion requirement may be

waived under certain circumstances, we conclude that waiver is inappropriate because

plaintiff’s claims are not collateral to his claims for benefits. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d

Case 2:09-cv-00999-FJM Document 16 Filed 09/25/09 Page 1 of 2
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 -

1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). Without administrative exhaustion or waiver, we lack subject

matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s claims under the Social Security Act. See Bass v.

Soc. Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are

dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw (doc. 15) is now moot and it is

denied for that reason. 

The court notes that plaintiff’s “notice: motion to withdraw” asks the court, in its

discretion, to allow plaintiff “to either remain in the case or to withdraw from it and go back

to the Social Security Administration to finish the remaining administrative steps.” Notice:

Motion to Withdraw at 3. Under Rule 41, Fed. R. Civ. P., a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss

an action through a notice of dismissal without a court order where neither an answer nor a

motion for summary judgment has been served. We do not treat plaintiff’s “notice: motion

to withdraw” as a notice of dismissal because plaintiff appeals to the court’s discretion and

does not specifically request dismissal. We note for plaintiff’s benefit that the result in this

case, dismissal without prejudice, would be the same were his motion to be construed as a

notice of dismissal.

Plaintiff is advised to exhaust his remedies before the Social Security Administration.

He is also advised to seek the advice of counsel. If he does not have a lawyer, he may wish

to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at (602) 257-

4434.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss without

prejudice (doc. 12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to withdraw (doc. 15).

DATED this 24th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00999-FJM Document 16 Filed 09/25/09 Page 2 of 2