Jimma v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 16, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01839
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 ALEMAYEHU JIMMA, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C19-1839-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of 15 subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 18.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Because Plaintiff has 16 not exhausted his administrative remedies before initiating this matter, as discussed below, the 17 Court lacks jurisdiction and orders the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss be granted. 18 II. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter in November 2019. (Dkt. ## 1, 9.) Plaintiff 20 alleges (1) he was approved for Supplemental Security Income Benefits but the benefits were not 21 paid for over one year; (2) his “back-pay” was not the correct amount as more than half was not 22 paid to him; and (3) his monthly benefits are not in the correct amount. (Id. at 2.) In February 23 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental 1 Security Income alleging money is being improperly deducted from his monthly benefits.1 (Dkt. 2 # 15 at 2.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel (dkt. # 16) and a motion to vacate the 3 Court’s order granting the Commissioner an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s 4 complaint (dkt. # 17) that Plaintiff did not previously oppose. 5 The Commissioner filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

6 jurisdiction alleging Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. # 18.) In support 7 of the motion to dismiss, the Commissioner submitted a declaration stating that as of February 4, 8 2020, the Appeals Review Processing System (“ARPS”) maintained by the Office of Appellate 9 Operations, which reviews claims when a claimant is dissatisfied with the decision of an 10 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in a Social Security Benefits application, shows no indication 11 of an ALJ decision, an ALJ dismissal, or request for review before the Appeals Council relating 12 to Plaintiff under Title II or XVI of the Social Security Act. (Christianne Voegele Decl. (Dkt. # 13 19) at 1-2.) 14 III. DISCUSSION

15 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and “possess only that power authorized by 16 Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 17 (1994) (citations omitted). When presented with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 18 jurisdiction, a plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction. See id.; see 19 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When presented with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 20 12(b)(1), the Court favorably views “the facts alleged to support jurisdiction.” McNatt v. Apfel, 21 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Boettcher v. Sec. Health & Human Servs., 759 F.2d 22 719, 720 (9th Cir. 1985)). 23 1 Plaintiff’s “amended complaint” appears to be missing the last page and therefore lacks a signed and dated certification that the complaint meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 1 This Court has statutory jurisdiction to review “any final decision of the Commissioner of 2 Social Security made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pursuant to the relevant federal 3 regulations, a claimant obtains a judicially reviewable final decision only after completing all of 4 the required steps, including asking for reconsideration of an initial determination, requesting a 5 hearing, and requesting review by the Appeals Council. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.907, 404.929,

6 404.967. A claimant seeking judicial review must either receive a decision by the Appeals 7 Council or notice from the Appeals Council that it has denied the claimant’s request for review. 8 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981. Here, it does not appear Plaintiff pursued the required administrative 9 remedies before initiating this action and therefore there is no final agency decision for the Court 10 to review. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate the Court has 11 jurisdiction over this matter.2 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss 14 (dkt. # 18) and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel

15 (dkt. # 16) and to vacate the Court’s previous order (dkt. # 17) are DISMISSED as MOOT. 16 Dated this 16th day of April, 2020. 17 A 18 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 19

20 21

22 2 The Court notes a discretionary decision by the Administration that is not a final decision may be subject to an exception where the Commissioner’s decision “is challenged on constitutional grounds.” 23 Evans v. Chater, 110 F.3d 1480, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109 (1977)); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Here, Plaintiff has not raised any colorable constitutional claims or met his burden of establishing such claims.