N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IKE YELLEN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ANDREW

M
. SAUL, C om

m issione r of Soc i a l Se c urity ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 19-16646 D.C . No. 1:18-c v-00422-AC K-R T
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Ala n C . Ka y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 8, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , B YB EE, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . M ike Ye lle n a

ppe a ls pro se the distric t c ourt’ s dism i ssa l of his a c tion 

# FIL ED
SEP 10 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c ha lle nging thec onstitutiona lity of the e arnings re quire m e n t of TitleII of the Soc ia l Se c urity

Ac t, whic h re quire s individuals to ha ve worke d a

nd pa id Soc ia l Se c urity taxe s for a c e rta in num

be r of y e ars in orde r to qua lify for Soc i a l Se c urity Disa bility Insura nc e B e ne fits (“ DIB ” ). Ye lle n a lle ge s tha t he wa s una

ble to m e e t the e arnings re quire m e nt be c a use he wa s inc arc e rate d. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. W e re vie w d

e nov o the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. De

x te r v . C olv in , 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th C ir. 2013). Ye lle n did not
e xha ust his a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s , whic h is a

re quire m e nt whe n filing a suit
c ha lle nging thede nia l of a n a pplic ation for DIB
. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 405(g); De x te r , 731 F.3d a

t 980. Thedistric t c ourt prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t Ye l le n did not m e e t the
e xc e ption to the

e xha ustion re quire m e nt be c a

use he did not ra ise a

c olora ble
c onstitutiona

l c la im tha t the e a rnings re quire m e nt viola

te s e qua l prote c t ion by tre ating him

le ss fa v o ra bly tha n a n e q ua lly disa ble d c l a im ant who wa s not im prisone d a

nd thus a ble to e a rn a qua lify i ng inc om e . Se e Hoy e v . Sullivan , 985 F.2d 990, 991 (9th C ir. 1992) (pe r c uriam ) (judic ia l re v ie w without e xha ustion of
a dm inistra

tive re m e die s is a

va ila ble if the c la im ant shows tha t his c onstitutiona

l
c la im is (1) c olla

te ra l to his be ne fits c l a im , (2) c olora ble , a nd (3) “ one whose
re solution would not se

rve the purpose s of e xha

ustion” ) (inte rna l c ita

tions
2om i tte d). As we he ld in Harv e ll v

. C hate r , 87 F.3d 371, 373 (9th C ir. 1996) (pe r
c uriam ), the e arnings re quire m e nt c om p orts with the Due Proc e ss C la use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt be c a

u se it is ra

tiona l ly ba s e d a nd fre e from

invidious disc rim ination. The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly dism isse d Ye lle n’ s c la im of disa bility disc rim ination in viola

t ion of TitleII of the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t be c a use suc h a

c la im m ay not be brought to re c ove r on a c la im for DIB
. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 405(h). AFFIRM E D.

3