Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedApril 3, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01207

StatusUnknown

This text of Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security (Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 EDWARD JAMES HILLS, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01207-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS v. MOTION 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 14 SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Edward James Hills’s “Motion and Affidavit 18 for an Order Directing Social Security to Reinstate Edward James Hills Supplemental Security 19 Income Based on His Notice of Award Letter and Release Back Payment from 11/2019 to 20 Present Date and an Investigation into Who Authorized Withholding of Federal Benefits.” Dkt. 21 No. 23. Given the procedural posture of the case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 22 On November 6, 2024, the Court issued an order that remanded Plaintiff’s case to the 23 Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. No. 16. The 24 Court noted that, upon remand, “the case remains pending in its administrative forum, and the 1 || posture of Plaintiffs administrative complaint is such that he has not exhausted his 2 || administrative remedies.” /d. at 5. Because administrative exhaustion is a jurisdictional 3 |} requirement for judicial review of a decision of the SSA, this Court has no jurisdiction to 4 || consider the instant motion. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757 (1975); Sensory 5 || Neurostimulation, Inc. v. Azar, 977 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir. 2020). 6 In other words, the Court’s hands are tied. Until the SSA takes final agency action on 7 |} Plaintiff’s case and Plaintiffs administrative remedies have been exhausted, the Court is without 8 || authority to consider this or any other motion that Plaintiff might file in this matter. Therefore, 9 || until such time as the SSA Appeals Council either: (a) denies review of Plaintiffs administrative 10 || case; or (b) accepts Plaintiff's case for review and issues a decision on its merits that Plaintiff 11 || wishes to appeal to this Court, further submissions will not receive a response from the Court. 12 13 Dated this 3rd day of April 2025. 14 7 | AA AC c 15 Tana Lin United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 EDWARD JAMES HILLS, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01207-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS v. MOTION 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 14 SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Edward James Hills’s “Motion and Affidavit 18 for an Order Directing Social Security to Reinstate Edward James Hills Supplemental Security 19 Income Based on His Notice of Award Letter and Release Back Payment from 11/2019 to 20 Present Date and an Investigation into Who Authorized Withholding of Federal Benefits.” Dkt. 21 No. 23. Given the procedural posture of the case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 22 On November 6, 2024, the Court issued an order that remanded Plaintiff’s case to the 23 Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. No. 16. The 24 Court noted that, upon remand, “the case remains pending in its administrative forum, and the 1 || posture of Plaintiffs administrative complaint is such that he has not exhausted his 2 || administrative remedies.” /d. at 5. Because administrative exhaustion is a jurisdictional 3 |} requirement for judicial review of a decision of the SSA, this Court has no jurisdiction to 4 || consider the instant motion. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757 (1975); Sensory 5 || Neurostimulation, Inc. v. Azar, 977 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir. 2020). 6 In other words, the Court’s hands are tied. Until the SSA takes final agency action on 7 |} Plaintiff’s case and Plaintiffs administrative remedies have been exhausted, the Court is without 8 || authority to consider this or any other motion that Plaintiff might file in this matter. Therefore, 9 || until such time as the SSA Appeals Council either: (a) denies review of Plaintiffs administrative 10 || case; or (b) accepts Plaintiff's case for review and issues a decision on its merits that Plaintiff 11 || wishes to appeal to this Court, further submissions will not receive a response from the Court. 12 13 Dated this 3rd day of April 2025. 14 7 | AA AC c 15 Tana Lin United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hills-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack