Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00283/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00283-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Janice Rice
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANICE RICE o/b/o EL GRANITO

FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Defendant,

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F O6-0283 AWI SMS

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

Defendant has made a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed no opposition. The motion is granted for the following reasons.

I. History

 On March 3, 2006, Plaintiff Janice Rice (as a representative of the El Granito

Foundation) filed suit against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) in the Tulare County

Superior Court, Small Claims division. As the form required for initiation of a small claims suit

is very basic, the factual basis behind the claim is not altogether clear. From the form, it appears

that Plaintiff took care of George Espinoza Rodriguez for the 10 months prior to his death. For

that care, Plaintiff seeks $3,500 in compensation from the SSA. Plaintiff said that SSA was

contacted several times regarding the amount and that Plaintiff’s attorney at the time was told

that the “only recourse was to file claim.” Doc. 1, Ex. A. The SSA removed the suit to federal

court and filed this motion to dismiss. Since the suit was removed, Plaintiff has not filed any

Case 1:06-cv-00283-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 06/09/06 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

2

papers or otherwise made contact with this court. Plaintiff is assumed to be proceeding pro se. 

Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the matter was taken under submission

without oral argument. 

II. Legal Standards

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; these limits cannot be disregarded or

evaded. Owens Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Plaintiff has the

burden to establish that subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). This burden, at the pleading stage, must be met by pleading

sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for this court to assert subject matter jurisdiction

over the action. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(1). When a defendant challenges jurisdiction “facially” all material allegations in the

complaint are assumed true, and the question for the court is whether the lack of federal

jurisdiction appears from the face of the pleading itself. Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F. 3d 590, 593 (8th

Cir. 1993); Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loasn Ass’n, 549 F. 2d 884, 891 (3rd Cir. 1977) ;

Cervantez v. Sullivan, 719 F. Supp. 899, 90.3 (E.D. Cal. 1989), rev’d on other grounds, 963 F.

2d 229 (9th Cir. 1992)

III. Discussion

SSA argues that the suit must be dismissed on its face for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. The process for determining whether benefits are due is governed by 42

U.S.C. §405. Under Subsection (g), “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. Such action shall be brought in the district court of

the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” Subsection (h) goes on

to say “The findings and decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing shall

Case 1:06-cv-00283-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 06/09/06 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

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, United States Code, to recover on any claim arising under this

title.” These provisions “clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a

‘final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing’” except when constitutional claims are

alleged. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108-9 (1977). “[E]xhaustion of the administrative

remedies provided under the Act [is] a jurisdictional prerequisite” to review under Section

405(g). Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 327 (1976).

In this case, there is no allegation that the administrative process was exhausted. Plaintiff

has not filed an opposition and the original small claims court claim contains little detail. What is

stated (contacted SSA’s Porterville office several times, told they must file a claim) suggests that

no formal claim for benefits may have ever been made. Plaintiff has not alleged that

administrative remedies have been exhausted. 

IV. Order

The Social Security Administration’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction is GRANTED. Janice Rice is given leave to file an amended complaint within

twenty-one (21) days of the filing of this Order. If no new complaint if filed within that time, the

Clerk is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00283-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 3