Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01034/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01034-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 - 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELISSA D. TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

vs. MOTION TO DISMISS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (Doc. # 8).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2007, Plaintiff Melissa D. Tucker filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against

Defendant Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. (Doc. # 1).

By way of the Petition, Plaintiff seeks to compel the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council

to review the decision of an Administrative Law Judge dismissing Plaintiff’s Social Security benefits

case. On August 17, 2007, Defendant moved to dismiss the Petition pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 8). On October 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to

dismiss. (Doc. # 11). Defendant did not file a reply. 

ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Case 3:07-cv-01034-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 7
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 - 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

On October 18, 2004, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits with the

Social Security Administration. On January 13, 2005, and May 10, 2005, the Social Security

Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. Thereafter, Plaintiff timely

requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and the ALJ scheduled a hearing for

August 10, 2006.

On August 10, 2006, Joseph Massa appeared at the ALJ hearing on behalf of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing, and the ALJ issued a notice to show cause with respect to

Plaintiff’s failure to appear. On September 1, 2006, the ALJ dismissed Plaintiff’s request for a hearing

and closed the case.

On September 28, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a request for review of the ALJ’s order of

dismissal by mailing the request to the Appeals Council at a United States post office. The Appeals

Council did not respond to the request of September 28, 2006, and on December 18, 2006, Plaintiff

sent a follow-up letter to the Appeals Council requesting the status of Plaintiff’s September 28, 2006,

request for review.

In a letter dated March 13, 2007, the Appeals Council notified Plaintiff’s counsel that it had

never received a request for review dated September 28, 2006, and further, ordered Plaintiff to show

cause why the time for review should be extended in order to consider the December 18, 2006, letter

as the initial request for review. On March 27, 2007, and in response to the Appeals Council’s letter

of March 13, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel re-submitted to the Appeals Council the September 28, 2006,

request for review, along with a photocopy of a certificate of mailing with a postmark of September

28, 2006.

On May 8, 2007, the Appeals Council dismissed Plaintiff’s request for review as untimely.

The Appeals Council concluded that it never received Plaintiff’s September 28, 2006, request for

review, and treated Plaintiff’s December 18, 2006, follow-up letter as Plaintiff’s initial request for

review. The Appeals Council concluded that the December 18, 2006, letter did not constitute a timely

request for review because Plaintiff filed the request more than sixty days after Plaintiff received

notice of the ALJ’s September 1, 2006, decision dismissing Plaintiff’s case. The Appeals Council

deemed Plaintiff’s September 28, 2006, certificate of mailing inadequate proof of timely filing.

Case 3:07-cv-01034-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 7
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 - 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal judicial power extends only to cases and controversies over which a court has subject

matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1); Barker-Hatch v. Viejas Group Baron Long Capitan

Grande Band of Diqueno Mission Indians of Viejas Group Reservation, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1156

(S.D. Cal. 2000). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and the

burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian

Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure allows for dismissal where there is a “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter” of the

suit. FED.R.CIV. P. 12(b)(1). A federal court must consider its own subject matter jurisdiction prior

to ruling on any other motion. See U.S. v. Ceja–Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2003). 

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) “may either attack the allegations of the complaint

or may be made as a ‘speaking motion’ attacking the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.”

Thornhill Pub. Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). If a defendant

brings a facial attack–arguing that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to attain

jurisdiction–the Court’s inquiry is the same as when ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule

12(b)(6). Organization for Advancement of Minorities with Disabilities v. Brick Oven Restaurant, 406

F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1124 (S.D. Cal. 2005). Specifically, the reviewing court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party. U.S.

ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1189 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted); Wilbur

v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2005).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. De La

Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978). A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state

a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) where the factual allegations do not raise the “right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Conversely, a complaint

may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim where the allegations plausibly show “that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Id. (citing FED R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). In ruling on a motion pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6), a court must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and further,

Case 3:07-cv-01034-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 3 of 7
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 - 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences to

be drawn therefrom. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003), see also Chang v.

Chen, 80 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1996). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look

beyond the complaint. Moore v. Costa Mesa, 886 F.2d 260, 262 (9th Cir. 1989).

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Petition should be dismissed because (1) the Court does

not have mandamus jurisdiction and (2) the Petition fails to allege facts which entitle Plaintiff to relief.

Specifically, Defendant contends that the Appeals Council’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s request for

review was discretionary and not subject to review, and further, that Plaintiff provided no evidence

that the Appeals Council received a request for review within sixty days of the ALJ’s decision

dismissing Plaintiff’s underlying case.

Plaintiff contends that she timely filed a request for review on September 28, 2006, and notes

that she provided the Appeals Council with a properly postmarked certificate of mailing. Plaintiff

contends that Defendant has a non-discretionary duty to review the ALJ’s decision on the merits given

Plaintiff’s timely filing of the request for review. Plaintiff contends that filing a Petition for Writ of

Mandamus was the only way to ensure review of her Social Security case on the merits.

I. Whether this Court has Mandamus Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361

“District courts have jurisdiction over ‘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.’” Finch v. Barnhart, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1361).

“Section 1361 ‘is an appropriate basis for jurisdiction in an action challenging procedures used in

administering social security benefits.’” Id. (citing Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir.

2003)); see also Dietsch v. Schweiker, 700 F.2d 865, 867-68 (2d Cir. 1983). “Mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy and is available to compel a federal official to perform a duty only if: (1) the

individual’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the official’s duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so

plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.” Kildare,

325 F.3d at 1084 (citing Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Social Security regulations provide that a claimant who is dissatisfied with an ALJ's

decision ‘may request that the Appeals Council review that action.’ 20 C.F.R. §

Case 3:07-cv-01034-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 4 of 7
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 - 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

404.967. A request for Appeals Council review must be filed ‘[w]ithin 60 days after

the date [the claimant] receive[s] notice of the hearing decision or dismissal . . . .’ 20

C.F.R. § 404.968(a). The claimant is presumed to have received notice of the decision

within five days after the date of the notice unless the claimant demonstrates she did

not receive the notice within the five-day period. 20 C.F.R. § 404.901. ‘Thus, a

claimant in actuality has 65 days from the date of the ALJ's decision in which to file

a request for review.’ Dietsch, 700 F.2d at 867. The time for filing a request for

review may be extended, however, if the claimant shows she has ‘good cause for

missing the deadline.’ 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.911, 404.968(b).

Finch, 463 F. Supp. 2d at 1005-1006. The Appeals Council “will dismiss” a request for review if the

request is not filed within the “stated period of time and time for filing has not been extended.” 20

C.F.R. § 404.971. “The dismissal of a request for Appeals Council review is binding and not subject

to further review.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.972.

Plaintiff contends that she timely requested Appeals Council review of the ALJ’s decision

denying the hearing request, and thus seeks to compel the Appeals Council to review the ALJ’s

decision on the merits. Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not timely file the request for review

with the Appeals Council, and regardless, contends that the Appeals Council’s decision to deem

Plaintiff’s request for review untimely is discretionary and not subject to review under the mandamus

statute. 

Presented with “a claimant’s contention that the Appeals Council erroneously dismissed a

timely filed request for review,” other courts have concluded that mandamus jurisdiction exists to

review the claimant’s contentions. Finch, 463 F. Supp. 2d at 1007; see also Dietsch, 700 F.2d at 868.

For instance, the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit held that:

Assuming for the moment that plaintiff’s request for review was mailed within the 60-

day period, then, if mailing constitutes filing, the Secretary erroneously dismissed

plaintiff’s timely request for review. Plaintiff’s challenge is a procedural one: he seeks

to compel the Appeals Council to perform its duty with respect to a timely request for

review, 20 CFR §§ 404.967, 404.981, and either deny the request or review his case.

He has no other avenue for relief. And his procedural dispute is unrelated to the merits

of his claim for benefits. We conclude that the district court had mandamus

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to consider his claim.

Dietsch, 700 F.2d at 868. Similarly, in Finch, the United States District Court for the Central District

of California held that, 

The Commissioner owes plaintiff a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate her claim for

disability benefits in accordance with the requirements of the Act and its regulations.

. . . Absent circumstances not present here, such as a claimant’s death or the voluntary

withdrawal of a request for review, Social Security regulations require the Appeals

Council to either deny or review a timely request for review. . . . Moreover, plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-01034-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 5 of 7
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 - 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

has no other avenue for relief in addressing her procedural claim that she timely mailed

her request for review to the Appeals Council; therefore, mandamus jurisdiction is

appropriate.

Finch, 463 F. Supp. 2d at 1007. As in Dietsch and Finch, this Court is presented with a contention

that the Appeals Council erroneously dismissed a timely request for review. After reviewing the case

law, and recognizing that (1) Plaintiff has no other avenue for relief and (2) “[t]he Commissioner [of

Social Security] owes plaintiff a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate her claim for disability benefits,”

the Court concludes that it has mandamus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to review

Plaintiff’s claim “that she timely mailed her request for review to the Appeals Council . . . .” Finch,

463 F. Supp. 2d at 1007; see also Dietsch, 700 F.2d at 868. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) is DENIED.

II. Whether Plaintiff has Alleged Facts Which Entitle Her to Relief

Plaintiff alleges that she timely filed a request with the Appeals Council to review the decision

of the ALJ denying Plaintiff’s request for a hearing and dismissing Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff further

alleges that the Appeals Council improperly dismissed her case for failure to timely file a request for

review with the Appeals Council. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged facts which, if

proved, could entitle her to relief. See Finch, 463 F. Supp. 2d at 1007; see also Dietsch, 700 F.2d at

868. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED.R.CIV. P. 12(b)(6)

is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 8) is DENIED. Defendant shall file an answer to

Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus on or before Monday, December 17, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01034-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 - 07CV1034 WQH (WMc)

Case 3:07-cv-01034-WQH-WMC Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 7 of 7