Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00761/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00761-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

- 1 - 06cv761

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAUSTINO ROBINSON (a/k/a Faustino

Robinson Garcia),

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV761 JLS (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

(Doc. No. 12)

vs.

SOCIAL SECURITY and UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 12.) On February 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint in San Diego

County Superior Court against “Social Security” and “Mrs. Garza.” Plaintiff, a Hispanic male,

alleged he was denied benefits (including psychiatric medications) because Mrs. Garza, a Hispanic

female, discriminated against him. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages totaling

$1 million dollars.

On April 4, 2006, defendants removed the case to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 1,

2006, defendants filed a “Certification of Scope of Office and Employment,” representing that

Mrs. Garza was acting within the scope of her employment as a federal employee. (Doc. No. 9.) 

Therefore, the United States was automatically substituted as a defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2679(d)(2). Defendants answered the complaint on June 2, 2006. (Doc. No. 10.)

Case 3:06-cv-00761-JLS-WMC Document 18 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Larry A. Burns. It was reassigned to the

Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller on July 10, 2007 and then to the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino on

October 1, 2007. 

2

 Defendants speculate that, once the Court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, plaintiff will

argue that he intended to bring an action in tort, rather than for review of a decision denying benefits.

Although the language of the complaint does not support such a reading, the Court agrees with

defendants that such a cause of action must fail because plaintiff has failed to show that he satisfied

the exhaustion requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v.

United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). 

- 2 - 06cv761

Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss on August 30, 2006. (Doc. No. 12.) 

Plaintiff has never filed an opposition. Defendants argue the Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this civil

action.1

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . 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[.]” Section 405(g) is the exclusive provision for judicial review of any

claim arising from a Social Security decision. See id. § 405(h) (“No findings of fact or decision of

the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or government agency except as herein

provided.”); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 762-63 (1975) (holding that § 405(g)’s “final

decision” prerequisite applied to suit challenging constitutionality of Social Security benefit

eligibility criteria); Hironymous v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 888, 892 (9th Cir. 1986). The Social Security

Act “makes no provision for remedies in money damages against officials responsible for

unconstitutional conduct that leads to the wrongful denial of benefits.” Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487

U.S. 412, 424 (1988); accord Butler v. Apfel, 144 F.3d 622, 624 (9th Cir. 1998). Therefore,

plaintiff’s only viable claim for relief is a review of the denial of benefits pursuant to § 405(g).2

To bring a claim for denial of benefits, however, plaintiff must first obtain a “final

decision” following a hearing to which plaintiff was a party. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). An applicant for

benefits does not have a “final decision,” however, until the Appeals Council declines to review

the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) or issues its own decision on a case accepted

for review. Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1479 (2006) (explaining that the Appeals Council’s decision,

Case 3:06-cv-00761-JLS-WMC Document 18 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 06cv761

either to decline review or on the merits, is binding unless the applicant files a civil action in

federal district court). Here, plaintiff did not have a final decision when he filed this action. 

According to the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, plaintiff was still awaiting a

hearing before an ALJ. (Ray Decla. ¶ 3.) Therefore, plaintiff failed to satisfy § 405(g)’s

exhaustion requirement and, because plaintiff’s claim is based on his entitlement to benefits, the

Court cannot waive the exhaustion requirement. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th

Cir. 2003) (explaining that exhaustion can be waived only where plaintiff’s claim, inter alia, is

“collateral to a substantive claim of entitlement” (internal quotation omitted)). 

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS defendants’

motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff MAY

REFILE his complaint after exhausting his administrative remedies and obtaining a “final

decision” from the Commissioner of Social Security. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2007

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00761-JLS-WMC Document 18 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 3