King v. O'Malley

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 22, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-03550
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TROY-DEMOND KING, Case No. 24-cv-03550-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 MARTIN O’MALLEY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 9 Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff Troy-Demond King brings this action against defendant Social Security 13 Commissioner Martin O’Malley challenging the denial of King’s disability insurance benefits 14 claim. Dkt. No. 1, at 2. King applied for social security disability insurance and supplemental 15 security income in July 2022. Dkt. No. 9-1, at 5, 21. The Social Security agency denied these 16 claims in initial determinations that issued in May 2023. Id. at 17–18, 33–34. King appealed and 17 requested reconsideration in June 2023. Id. at 37. King’s request for reconsideration is still 18 pending. Id. at 2. 19 In King’s complaint before the Court, King asserts two grounds on which the 20 Commissioner’s denial should be overturned: (1) that “O’Malley never gave any medical 21 findings/facts” and therefore the decision was not based on substantial evidence, and (2) that 22 “O’Malley & SSA, and the federal courts have been making injurious ‘presumptions’ which 23 prejudice my Constitutional rights by trying to associate me with the ‘idem sonans’, which is the 24 all caps version of my Christian name which is in fact a trust previously associated with a ‘public 25 office’ in the United States government by virtue of the Social Security number attached to it.” 26 Dkt. No. 1, at 3. 27 Now before the Court is O’Malley’s motion to dismiss King’s complaint for failure to state 1 Dkt. No. 9. O’Malley contends that King failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because the 2 agency “has not yet issued a reconsideration, let alone a final decision,” on King’s claim. Id. at 4. 3 King did not file any response to O’Malley’s motion to dismiss. 4 I. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A. Rule 12(b)(6) 6 The Federal Rules require a complaint to include only a “short and plain statement of the 7 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In considering a Rule 8 12(b)(6) motion contending that a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court must “accept all 9 factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable” 10 to the non-moving party. Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir. 2009). 11 Dismissal is required if the plaintiff fails to allege facts allowing the Court to “draw the reasonable 12 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 13 663 (2009). While legal conclusions “can provide the complaint’s framework,” the Court will not 14 assume they are correct unless adequately “supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 664. 15 On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, materials outside the complaint can be considered if they are 16 incorporated by reference therein or otherwise judicially noticeable. See United States v. Ritchie, 17 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A [district] court may ... consider certain materials— 18 documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or 19 matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary 20 judgment.”). The Court may consider documents which are “not physically attached to the 21 complaint” “if the [ ] ‘authenticity ... is not contested’ and ‘the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily 22 relies’ on them.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Parrino v. 23 FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705–06 (9th Cir.1998)). Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits judicial 24 notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute” because it is “generally known.” 25 B. Exhaustion 26 The Social Security Act permits judicial review of only a “final decision of the 27 Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Califano v. Sanders, 1 Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), deprives the district court of jurisdiction.” Bass v. Soc. Sec. 2 Admin,, 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989). When a claimant has not exhausted administrative 3 appeals as required to obtain a final decision, the complaint must be dismissed. See id.; Heckler v. 4 || Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 618-19 (1984). 5 An exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement may apply if a plaintiff presents 6 a colorable constitutional claim. See Subia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 7 2001); Califano, 430 U.S. at 109. “A constitutional claim is colorable if it is not wholly 8 insubstantial, immaterial, or frivolous.” Klemm vy. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2008) 9 (internal quotations omitted). 10 || I. ANALYSIS 11 King has not raised any colorable constitutional claim that might waive the exhaustion 12 || requirement.' The agency has not yet issued its determination on King’s request for 13 reconsideration or its final decision. King therefore has not exhausted his administrative remedies. 14 || Because King has not exhausted his administrative remedies, he does not have a final decision ripe 3 15 for judicial review. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.900(a)(5), 416.1400(a)(5). O’Malley’s motion to dismiss is 16 || therefore GRANTED without leave to amend. The dismissal is without prejudice to King’s ability 3 17 to pursue a lawsuit challenging the denial of his claim if that denial becomes final and King has 18 exhausted his administrative remedies. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: October 22, 2024 22 23 ke Cage lm P. Casey #itts United States District Judge 25 26 King cursorily asserts that the use of his name in capital letters was an “injurious ‘presumption[ |’ which prejudice[s] 3g || [his] Constitutional rights.” Dkt No. 1, at 3. This theory “is meritless and has been soundly rejected by federal courts.” In re Dominick, 2020 WL 1173505, at *3 n.7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) (citations omitted).