Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02912/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02912-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 HENRY KING, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

 CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner 

 for the Social Security Administration (SSA), Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-02912 YGR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 24 

 Plaintiff Henry King, proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a decision of 

the commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”). (See Dkt. No. 11.) Specifically, 

plaintiff brings a claim for reinstatement of his supplemental security income disability payments, 

which the SSA recently terminated. Plaintiff originally filed this case against the SSA in the Alameda 

County Superior Court, Small Claims Jurisdiction on March 21, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 1, Notice of 

Removal.) On May 31, 2016, the United States Attorney General removed the case on behalf of the 

SSA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1442. 

Currently pending before the Court is the SSA’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 20.)1

 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the 

pleadings in this action, and for the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the SSA’s motion 

and DISMISSES plaintiff’s case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff was approved for supplemental security income (“SSI”) disability payments effective 

March 1, 1999. (Dkt. No. 20-1, “Martinez Decl.,” ¶ 3.a.) Plaintiff received monthly SSI disability 

payments through February 2016 when the SSA notified plaintiff his SSI benefits would be reduced to 

zero beginning April 2016. (Id. ¶ 3.h.) The SSA did so based on their determination that plaintiff and 

his wife had includable resources exceeding $3,000, making plaintiff ineligible for SSI benefits. (Id. ¶ 

 1

 Plaintiff’s August 16, 2016 supplemental opposition to the SSA’s motion was also styled as 

a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 24.) For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes 

it is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Case 4:16-cv-02912-YGR Document 27 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

3.e.) Then, in March 2016, the SSA further notified plaintiff he had been overpaid $23,846.80 for SSI 

monthly benefits received for the periods December 2013 through January 2015 and March 2015 

through February 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 3.g, 3.h.) 

 On March 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration to appeal the decision he had 

been overpaid. (Id. ¶ 3.j.) That same day plaintiff sent a letter to the SSA requesting that it waive the 

overpayment on grounds that the SSA’s decision that he and his wife had includable resources 

exceeding $3,000 was incorrect. (Id. ¶ 3.k.) 

 On April 11, 2016, the SSA sent plaintiff a notice of reconsideration informing him that its 

decision would not change. (Id. ¶ 3.l.) On April 21, 2016, plaintiff requested a hearing before an 

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to appeal the reconsideration decision. (Id. ¶ 3.n.) On June 20, 

2016, the SSA sent plaintiff’s request to the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review and, as of 

the time of the SSA’s motion to dismiss, that request was awaiting scheduling. (Id.) 

 Meanwhile, on May 7, 2016, the SSA informed plaintiff that his request to waive the 

overpayment was denied. (Id. ¶ 3.m.) Plaintiff submitted a request for reconsideration of that denial 

on June 29, 2016. (Id. ¶3.o.) 

 On June 22, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that he is appealing the 

decision of the SSA commissioner to stop his SSI payments. (See Dkt. No. 11.) 

II. THE SSA’S MOTION TO DISMISS

The SSA moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) on grounds that the Court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear his claim. Plaintiff fails to oppose substantively, instead 

submitting arguments on the merits of his claim of being wrongfully denied SSI benefits. 

A. Applicable Standard of Review 

 A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is a challenge to the court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies 

outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994). The party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court bears the burden of establishing that 

the court has the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Id. A challenge 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) may be facial or factual. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 

Case 4:16-cv-02912-YGR Document 27 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 6
3 

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 

Northern District of California 

2000). In a facial attack, the jurisdictional challenge is confined to the allegations pled in the 

complaint. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). The challenger asserts that 

the allegations in the complaint are insufficient “on their face” to invoke federal jurisdiction. Safe Air 

for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.2004). “If the moving party converts the motion 

to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the 

court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its 

burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Wolfe, 392 F.3d at 362 (internal quotations 

omitted). 

 To confer subject matter jurisdiction in an action against the United States, a plaintiff must 

show both (1) a waiver of sovereign immunity, and (2) “statutory authority vesting a district court 

with subject matter jurisdiction.” Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1016 (9th 

Cir. 2007). Waivers of immunity whereby the sovereign consents to suit are “construed strictly in 

favor of the sovereign.” United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 34 (1992) (internal 

quotations omitted). Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain claims against the 

federal government absent a showing of “an unequivocal waiver of immunity.” Baker v. United 

States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1987). To establish subject matter jurisdiction over claims against 

the sovereign, plaintiffs “cannot rest on the assertion that principles of immunity do not apply,” but 

“[r]ather must establish some form of statutory authorization for their claims.” Alvarado, 509 F.3d at 

1016 (citing Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

B. Review of Final Decision of the SSA Commissioner 

 Congress provides a waiver of sovereign immunity for judicial review of the SSA’s 

determinations as to SSI claims in 42 U.S.C. section 405(g), in relevant part: 

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. 

Congress limited federal courts’ jurisdiction to review of “final” decisions of the commissioner, 

defined in 42 U.S.C. section 405(h) as: 

Case 4:16-cv-02912-YGR Document 27 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 6
4 

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 

Northern District of California 

Finality of Commissioner's decision. The findings and decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing shall be binding upon 

all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by 

any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein 

provided. No action against the United States, the Commissioner of 

Social Security, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought 

under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising 

under this subchapter. 

“[W]here an individual seeks a monetary benefit from the agency . . . , the agency denies the 

benefit, and the individual challenges the lawfulness of that denial,” the waiver in Section 405(g) as 

limited in Section 405(h) is the exclusive method for judicial review of the SSA’s decision. Shalala 

v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 10 (1999). Accordingly, Section 405(g) 

provides the only statutory basis for plaintiff to seek judicial review of the commissioner’s decisions. 

Id. Section 405(h) “demands the ‘channeling’ of virtually of all legal attacks through the agency,” 

and in that respect, prevents “premature interference by” the federal courts in review of its decisions 

in each case. Id. at 13; see, e.g., Ass’n of Am. Med. Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 779 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (holding that Section 405(h) “is a complete bar to federal question jurisdiction” where 

“there is an administrative channel for review of” the adverse determination at issue). 

Under Section 405(g), federal courts are empowered only to review the “final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis supplied); see 

Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977) (holding that the predecessor statute to Section 405(g) 

“clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action,” a decision made after a hearing). 

An action of the SSA is not a “final decision” until a claimant exhausts the SSA’s four-step 

administrative review process, including a hearing before an ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(1)–

(5) (detailing the four steps in the administrative review process, only after which the SSA has made 

a “final decision” reviewable by a federal district court). Here, two levels of review remain. Until 

completed, a district court lacks jurisdiction to review claims for benefits under Section 405(g). See 

Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d 1134, 1144–45 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “the federal 

courts may not assert jurisdiction over” claims under Section 405(g) where plaintiffs do not allege 

they exhausted their claims through the administrative process). 

Case 4:16-cv-02912-YGR Document 27 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

 Here, plaintiff asks the Court to review the SSA’s decision that his includable resources exceed 

$3,000, rendering him ineligible for SSI benefits. Plaintiff does not allege that he has exhausted the 

administrative process. The SSA submits evidence showing plaintiff has not exhausted his 

administrative remedies. The statute clearly dictates that plaintiff may not seek judicial intervention 

without first exhausting the administrative appeals process. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 

416.400. Plaintiff has initiated the review process as to the overpayment decisions and must allow 

the agency to complete its review, including a hearing before an ALJ, before bringing a claim in this 

Court. Id.; see also Uhm, 620 F.3d at 1144–45. 

 Plaintiff disputes whether the funds in the bank account the SSA considered to re-calculate his 

resources to exceed the $3,000 limit were attributed to him properly. In that regard, plaintiff argues 

that the SSA should have to prove the bank account belonged to him before they suspend his benefits. 

(See Dkt. Nos. 22, 24, 26.) Plaintiff raises a factual issue going directly to his claim for benefits, 

which the SSA should resolve before the Court reviews the SSA’s final decision based on a 

developed record. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that the 

“the exhaustion requirement allows the agency to compile a detailed factual record and apply agency 

expertise in administering its own regulations”). Plaintiff’s claim of the SSA’s alleged error does not 

allow him to circumvent the administrative process. Id. 

 Because plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative process, plaintiff has not met his burden 

to show he is appealing a “final decision.” The Court does not have jurisdiction to review the SSA’s 

benefits decisions under Section 405(g). 

C. Mandamus Action2

 Congress also provides a waiver of immunity for claims against the sovereign where district 

courts are exercising their mandamus powers under 28 U.S.C. section 1361: 

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the 

nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United 

States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. 

In certain circumstances Section 1361 may be “an appropriate basis for jurisdiction in an action 

challenging procedures used in administering social security benefits.” Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1084. 

 2

 Although plaintiff does not explicitly state an action for mandamus, the Court addresses it 

out of an abundance of caution in light of plaintiff’s pro se status. 

Case 4:16-cv-02912-YGR Document 27 Filed 09/08/16 Page 5 of 6
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Not so here. Plaintiff has not yet exhausted his available administrative remedies and he “clearly 

[has] an adequate remedy in § 405(g) for challenging all aspects” of the SSA decisions in a district 

court once he completes the administrative process. See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617 (1984)

(mandamus is “intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues 

of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty”). Indeed, administrative 

review of the underlying decisions may correct the error of which plaintiff complains. Mandamus is 

simply not appropriate here. See Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1084 (finding mandamus inappropriate where 

appellants had not yet completed the administrative process as required by Section 405(g)). 

 As no waiver of sovereign immunity applies to plaintiff’s claim for review, the Court is 

without jurisdiction over the case. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 

D. Leave to Amend 

 Leave to amend is liberally granted. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Chodos v. 

West Pub. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). One exception to this general rule of 

permissiveness, however, is where amendment would be futile. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Smith v. 

Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to identify other 

facts or theories that would allow for judicial review of his claim and justify granting leave to amend. 

The Court finds it would be futile to grant leave to amend under these circumstances. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the SSA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is 

GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff bringing his claim for review 

once he receives a final decision from the Commissioner of Social Security. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 20 and 24 and terminates this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 8, 2016 

 ________________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-02912-YGR Document 27 Filed 09/08/16 Page 6 of 6