NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO J. CALDERON

- LOPEZ, AKA Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No s
. 1 6

- 17353 17

- 15240

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv - 02732

- LB

MEMORANDUM *

RICARDO J. CALDERON

- LOPEZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. TIGRAN GUMUSHYAN; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16152
D.C. No. 3:16

- cv - 07236

- LB

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magis trate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

# FILED

DEC 28 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 Submitted December 27 , 2018 * * * Before: PAEZ, BERZON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Ricardo J. Calderon

- Lopez , a.k.a. Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments , in two consolidated cases and a related case, dismissing for la ck of subject matter jurisdiction his challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security’s termination of his disab ility insurance bene fits and his torts

- based and constitutional claims against individual employees of the Social Security Administration ( “ SSA ” )

. W e affirm. The district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Calderon

- Lopez’s consolidated action challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s termination of Calderon

- Lopez’s disability insurance benefits

. Calderon

- Lo pez failed to attend his hearing before the Administrative Law Judge ( “ ALJ ” ) and thus failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Klemm v.
Astrue , 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 ( 9th Cir. 2008) ( explaining the Social Security Act only grants the court jurisdi ction to review final decisions of the Commissioner); Subia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 264 F.3d 899, 90 1

- 0 2 (9th Cir. 2001) ( holding the claimant failed to exhaust administrative remedies by refusing to attend the ALJ hearing). We reject what we understand t o be Calderon

- Lopez’s contentions that

** * The panel unanimously concludes the s e case s are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3

exhaustion of remedies was futile because of the ALJ’s alleged bias

. However, our decision today does not limit Calderon

- Lopez’s opportunity to reapply for disability benefits or to petition the agency for reopening , s ee, e.g. , Commissioner of Social Security's Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Manual ( HALLEX) I

- 2

- 9

- 40 (2017), https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I

- 02/I

- 2

- 9

- 40.html

. That district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing various scheduling orders. See S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch , 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review )

. In Calderon

- Lopez’s separate action against individual SSA employees, t he district court also properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Again,
t he Soc ial Security Act only grants federal court s jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Commissioner

. Klemm , 543 F.3d at 1144 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g))

. Moreover, the F ed eral T ort C laims A ct does not grant jurisdiction as to individual defendants in cases arising under the Social Security Act

. Hooker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 858 F.2d 525, 5 29

- 30 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(h))

. T he district court properly denied Calderon

- Lopez’s request to withdraw his consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. A party may only withdraw s uch
consent for good cause or extraordinary circumstances. See Dixon v. Ylst , 990 F. 2d 478, 479

- 80 (9th Ci r. 1993)

. Contrary to Calderon

- Lopez’ s implication , the appeal4

of a related case constitutes neither good cause nor an extraordinary circumstance. Calderon

- Lopez asserts that, as a result of the consolidation of his two other cases, the district court h ad no jurisdiction over his suit against individual SSA employees at the time that it granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. There is no legal basis for this argument. A district court retains jurisdiction over an action until it issues a final de cision. Nat’l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co. , 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997)

. The distric t court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Calderon

Lopez’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

. Calderon

- Lopez did not present an argument for reconsideration in accordance with the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rules, Civil L.R. 7

- 9(c). Calderon

- Lopez filed a number of motions regarding the consolidated cases,
case nos. 16

- 17353 and 17

- 15240 . His “Motion for leave to File an Amended Compl aint,” D kt. N o. 34, “Motion for Summary Judgment,” D kt. N o. 4 7, request for judicial notice, D kt. N o. 4 0, motion to vacate an unrelated state court order, Dkt. No. 58, and motion to consider whether another case f iled by Calderon

- Lopez should be related to this one, Dkt. No. 59, are denied. Calderon

- Lopez ’s “Motion of Opposition to Adm. Orders [49, 50]; Petitioning Waiver of Oral Argument

Expediting Reinstatement of Benefits ,” D kt. N o. 52, is denied in part and gr anted in part. We grant Calderon

- Lopez ’s motion to submit the case on the briefs, but5

otherwise den y the motion. P ending motions identified or construed as motions to expedite , D kt

. N os. 35, 37, 38, 39, and 45, are granted. Calderon

- Lopez has also filed two pending motions in the related case, case

no. 17

- 16152 . H is motion for sanctions, D kt. N o. 20, is denied. We construe Calderon

- Lopez’s filing identified as “ I nformative M otion , ” D kt N o. 2 6 , as a letter pursuant to Federal R

ule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), which requires no response from this court

. AFFIRMED.