Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00993/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00993-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Astrue
Defendant
Fred A. Whitaker
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FRED A. WHITAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00993-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 18

Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 

13, 18. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration’s (“SSA”) motion and DENIES Plaintiff Fred Whitaker’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 30, 1996, Plaintiff filed an application for social security income (“SSI”) benefits. 

Administrative Record (“AR”) at 388-400. SSA denied Plaintiff’s application after finding he was 

“not disabled or blind under [SSA] rules.” Id. at 75-78. After exhausting his administrative 

appeals, see id. at 3-4, 16-24, Plaintiff sought judicial review of SSA’s final decision denying 

benefits. On February 11, 2002, Judge James remanded the case in accordance with the stipulated 

request of the parties. Whitaker v. Colvin, Case No. 01-cv-00030-MEJ, Dkt. No. 22 (N.D. Cal.). 

Following the completion of further proceedings, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that 

Plaintiff was disabled from his alleged onset date of October 30, 1995 through the date of the 

ALJ’s decision, October 14, 2004. AR at 329-33.

In line with the ALJ’s decision, SSA began paying Plaintiff monthly benefits in January 

2005. Id. at 440. Additionally, SSA calculated retroactive SSI benefits in the amount of 

$55,040.09 for the period from July 1996 to December 2004. Id. $20,004 of the retroactive 

Case 4:15-cv-00993-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/13/16 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

benefits were withheld and reimbursed to Alameda County for interim assistance payments made 

to Plaintiff between August 1996 and December 2004. Id.

Plaintiff contested the reimbursement of interim assistance payments both administratively 

with Alameda County and judicially by filing a petition for writ of mandate in Alameda County 

Superior Court. See Whitaker v. Cal. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 08-414038, 2010 WL 4403317, at 

*2 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2010). In his petition for writ of mandate, Plaintiff argued that “both the 

State and the County violated numerous constitutional, statutory, and equitable mandates by 

deducting the entire amount [Plaintiff] received in [interim assistance] benefits from [Plaintiff’s] 

retroactive SSI benefits without crediting him for the value of the work he performed.” Id. The 

California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining the State and County’s 

demurrer and rejected all of Plaintiff’s arguments, holding that “the County’s actions in recovering 

the full amount of [Plaintiff’s] interim assistance was expressly authorized under federal law.” Id.

at *4.

Plaintiff separately contested SSA’s calculation of the retroactive SSI benefits award, 

arguing that SSA improperly reduced the SSI benefits payment under the “presumed value rule,” 

which allows for the reduction of SSI payments where, inter alia, a claimant fails to prove that he 

paid his pro rata share of household expenses while living in the household of another. See AR at 

315-18.

On March 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present action. Dkt. No. 1. In his complaint, Plaintiff 

indicates that the case concerns his claim for “SSI Back Pay.” Id. The allegations in the 

complaint relate to Plaintiff’s contention that SSA improperly reduced his SSI benefits payment 

amount based on the presumed value rule. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argues that (1) he is entitled to the $20,004 

of retroactive benefits that SSA reimbursed to Alameda County; and (2) he is entitled to interest 

on the full amount of retroactive SSI benefits calculated by SSA. See Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff does 

Case 4:15-cv-00993-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/13/16 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

not contest SSA’s reduction of his SSI benefits payment under the presumed value rule.1 In its 

cross-motion for summary judgment, Defendant argues, among other things, that this Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

A. Legal Standard

A federal court must dismiss an action when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “Subject matter jurisdiction can never be forfeited or waived and federal courts 

have a continuing independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.” 

Leeson v. Transam. Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975 n.12 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may 

be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial 

and the entry of judgment. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006). The party 

invoking subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists. 

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). 

Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over cases where the federal 

government is a defendant and Congress has not explicitly waived sovereign immunity. United 

States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997). 

As a sovereign, the United States is immune from suit and can be sued only to the extent it has 

waived its sovereign immunity. Mitchell, 445 U.S. at 538. Any waiver of sovereign immunity 

must be “unequivocally expressed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Statutory Framework

The Social Security Act sets forth the procedures for payment of SSI benefits, as well as an 

administrative scheme for resolving disputes between claimants and SSA. 42 U.S.C. § 1383. 

Judicial review of SSA’s final SSI decisions is provided for in § 1383(c)(3), which states that such 

decisions “shall be subject to judicial review as provided in [42 U.S.C. § 405(g)] to the same 

extent as the Commisioner’s final determinations under [42 U.S.C. § 405].” Section 405(g) 

 

1 Because Plaintiff failed to assert any arguments related to SSA’s application of the presumed 

value rule in his motion for summary judgment or in his opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion 

for summary judgment, the Court deems any such arguments waived. See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. 

Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case 4:15-cv-00993-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/13/16 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

provides, in relevant part: “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.” Section 405(h) makes clear that § 405(g) provides the exclusive 

mechanism for reviewing social security claims in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“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.”).

C. Reimbursement of Interim Assistance Payments

Plaintiff argues that SSA improperly reimbursed $20,004 of interim assistance payments to 

Alameda County from his retroactive SSI benefits award. The Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction to review SSA’s reimbursement of interim assistance payments.

42 U.S.C. § 1383(g) governs reimbursement to states for interim assistance payments and 

provides that “[t]he provisions of subsection (c) of this section [pertaining to judicial review] shall 

not be applicable to any disagreement concerning payment by the Commissioner of Social 

Security to a State pursuant to the preceding provisions of this subsection nor the amount retained 

by the State (or political subdivision).” 42 U.S.C. § 1383(g)(5). This language is clear and 

unambiguous, and “plainly manifests Congress’s express intention that decisions of the 

[Commissioner] regarding reimbursements of interim assistance not be subject to judicial review.” 

Trotta v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 765 F. Supp. 29, 32 (D. Mass. 1991); see also Barker v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-cv-01231-HZ, 2015 WL 630878, at *4 (D. Or. Feb. 12, 2015) 

(dismissing plaintiff’s claim challenging SSA’s reimbursement of interim assistance payments to a 

state for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Page v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 07-14873-MH, 

2009 WL 837705, at *11 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2009) (same). 

Under these circumstances, Plaintiff’s “proper recourse would be to seek recovery from the 

state.” Trotta, 765 F. Supp. at 33. Plaintiff has already unsuccessfully attempted to seek recovery 

Case 4:15-cv-00993-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/13/16 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

from the State of California, both administratively and judicially. See Whitaker, 2010 WL 

4403317, at *2. Plaintiff was given a full opportunity to litigate this issue in state court. See id., at 

*4 (“Not only is there no law prohibiting the County [of Alameda] from taking such action, but 

the County’s actions in recovering the full amount of [Plaintiff’s] interim assistance was expressly 

authorized under federal law.”). That Plaintiff did not prevail on his claim in the state forum does 

not mean he may relitigate the issue in federal court, given Congress’ express intention that federal 

judicial review not extend to such claims. 

Moreover, the Court agrees with other courts who have determined that this procedural 

framework does not violate claimants’ due process rights. See, e.g., Williams v. King, 796 F. 

Supp. 737, 742 (E.D.N.Y. 1992).

Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot challenge SSA’s reimbursement of interim assistance 

payments to Alameda County in this Court.

D. Interest

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to interest on the full amount of retroactive SSI 

benefits calculated by SSA. However, a plaintiff may not recover interest in a suit against the 

government unless Congress expressly waives sovereign immunity from an award of interest. 

VGS Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 808 F.2d 842, 845 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1986) (“[I]n the 

absence of a specific provision in a contract or statute, or express consent by Congress, interest 

does not run on a claim against the United States.”) (emphasis in original). As described above, 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to certain claims under 

the Social Security Act. Because that provision does not expressly waive such immunity for 

awards of interest on past due benefits, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s claim for interest on his retroactive SSI benefits award. See Abulkhair v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., 450 F. App’x 117, 119 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that plaintiff could not seek interest on 

past-due SSI benefits in absence of express waiver of sovereign immunity).

Case 4:15-cv-00993-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/13/16 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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close the case and 

enter judgment in favor of Defendant. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/13/2016

Case 4:15-cv-00993-HSG Document 20 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 6