Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00344/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00344-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael A McCoy, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-00344-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Doc. 21. Plaintiff files a response. Doc. 22. No party 

requests oral argument. The Court will grant the motion. 

I. Background. 

 On August 17, 2010, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance 

benefits. Id. at 2. On December 9, 2011, at Plaintiff’s reconsideration hearing, an 

administrative law judge reversed and forwarded Plaintiff’s claim for processing. Id. On 

June 16, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Notice of Award informing him he was entitled 

to disability insurance benefits. Id. Upon Plaintiff’s request, Defendant conducted a 

review of Plaintiff’s benefits calculation. Id. On July 22, 2012 Plaintiff received notice 

that upon review, Defendant found the first decision’s calculation to be correct.. Id. The 

July 22, 2012 notice also informed Plaintiff that, if he disagreed with the decision, he had 

the right to request a hearing before an ALJ and he had 60 days from the date he received 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-DGC Document 23 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

the letter to make the request. Id. No evidence suggests Plaintiff made such a request. 

Id. On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action. Doc. 1. 

II. Analysis. 

AA Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.@ Safe Air for 

Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). AIn a facial attack, the 

challenger asserts that the allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient on their 

face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger 

disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal 

jurisdiction.@ Id. Where, as here, Defendant factually challenges the assertion of 

jurisdiction, the court may consider evidence extrinsic to the complaint. Robinson v. 

United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff bears the burden of 

establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 

 A federal district court has jurisdiction to review a final decision of Defendant 

made after a hearing to which the plaintiff was a party. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 42 U.S.C. § 

1383(c)(3). No findings of fact or decision by Defendant may be reviewed except as 

provided under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). If the requirements of § 405(g) 

are not satisfied, a federal district court may have subject jurisdiction only over a 

“colorable constitutional claim” asserted by the plaintiff. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 

99, 109 (1977). Plaintiff has made no constitutional claim. 

 Plaintiff has made no assertion and presented no evidence that Defendant has 

made a reviewable final decision. See Docs. 1, 22. Plaintiff has made no assertion and 

presented no evidence that he requested a hearing to challenge the determination of the 

amount of his benefits. Id. Plaintiff’s one-page response states only that “Rule 103 on 

evidence in SSA attorney letter dating July 22 2016, which I never received, did not give 

me the chance to go before a administrative law judge to question the amount of benefit 

paid to me.” Doc. 22. 

 Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by 

a preponderance of the evidence. Robinson, 586 F.3d 685. Accordingly, the Court will 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-DGC Document 23 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

 IT IS ORDERED: Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction (Doc. 21) is granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate this matter. 

 Dated this 2nd day of November, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00344-DGC Document 23 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 3