Marcos-Chavela v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00876
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 SUSAN MARCOS-CHAVELA, Case No. C23-876 TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING 8 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DISMISS 9 Defendant. 10

11 Plaintiff Susan Marcos-Chavela, unrepresented by counsel, is seeking judicial 12 review of a reduction in her Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Dkt. 6. Before 13 the Court is the Commissioner's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, under Federal 14 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and 15 12(b)(6), for failure to state claim. Dkt. 18. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction 16 of the Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 4, Dkt. 8. 17 Plaintiff did not respond to the Commissioner’s motion. Based on the 18 Commissioner's motion and supporting papers, the governing law, and the balance of 19 the record, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's 20 complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 21 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 On May 29, 2023, the agency sent Plaintiff a notice that her SSI payments would 23 be lowered from $593.00 to $0.00 because she had not applied for and taken the 24 1 necessary steps to obtain other benefits or payments for which she might qualify. See 2 Dkt. 18-1 (Declaration of Yeng Starks) at ¶3. The notice advised Plaintiff to appeal 3 within 60 days if she disagreed with the decision and provided instructions for doing so. 4 See id. at ¶4. Plaintiff did not file an appeal. Id. at ¶5.

5 On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and 6 her complaint in which she seeks judicial review of the reduction in her SSI benefits. 7 She further alleges the Commissioner engaged in gender discrimination. Dkt. 6. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 A. Standards 10 a. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) 11 A party may file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 12(b)(1) challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. “Federal courts are 13 courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 14 377 (1994). As a result, they may only review cases as authorized by either the

15 Constitution or a federal statute. Id. “If jurisdiction is lacking at the outset, the district 16 court has no power to do anything with the case except dismiss [it].” Morongo Band of 17 Mission Indians v. California Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988) 18 (quotation omitted). 19 Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss 20 a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 12(b)(6). The court's inquiry turns on whether the operative “contain[s] sufficient factual 22 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft 23 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

24 1 570 (2007).). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 2 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 3 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). While 4 accepting as true a plaintiff's factual allegations at the initial responsive pleading stage,

5 a court is not obligated to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual 6 allegations. Id.; Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th 7 Cir. 2008). When resolving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court 8 considers the contents of the complaint and material properly submitted with it. Van 9 Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 b. Social Security Exhaustion Requirement 11 A claimant obtains the Commissioner's “final decision” qualifying for judicial 12 review only after completing the four steps of the administrative review process: (1) 13 initial determination; (2) reconsideration determination; (3) hearing before an 14 administrative law judge (ALJ); and (4) Appeals Council review. See 20 C.F.R. §§

15 404.900(a), 416.1400(a). After the Appeals Council rules on a claimant's request for 16 review, the claimant may request judicial review in a federal district court. 20 C.F.R. §§ 17 404.981, 416.1481. 18 A federal district court's review of claims arising under Titles II and XVI of 19 the Social Security Act is limited, and may only occur after a “final decision” has been 20 rendered by the Commissioner after a hearing before an ALJ. See 42 U.S.C. § 21 405(g); Subia v. Commissioner of Social Security, 264 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir.2001). 22 A claimant's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies set forth in 23 the Social Security Act deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Bass

24 1 v. Social Security Administration, 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir.1989). However, the district 2 court may waive a claimant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and grant her 3 judicial review if she asserts a colorable constitutional claim. Subia, 264 F.3d at 902. 4 B. Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust Her Administrative Remedies.

5 Here, Defendant contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiff has 6 not completed all steps of the administrative review process. In support, Defendant has 7 submitted a declaration from Yeng Starks, a management analyst for the San Francisco 8 Center for Disability and Program Support, Social Security Administration. See Dkt. 18- 9 1. Mr. Starks declares that Plaintiff has not appealed the agency’s action reducing her 10 SSI payments. Id. at ¶5. Further, Plaintiff has not furnished any evidence demonstrating 11 that she has in fact completed the administrative review process. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and the 13 Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 14 405(g); Subia, 264 F.3d at 902; Bass, 872 F.2d at 833.

15 While a court may waive the administrative exhaustion requirement if a claimant 16 asserts colorable constitutional claims, the mere assertion of a bare constitutional 17 violation without supporting allegations does not constitute a colorable constitutional 18 claim. See Subia, 264 F.3d at 902; Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th 19 Cir.2008). Here, Plaintiff alleges that she has experienced “continued gender 20 discrimination,” but did not allege any facts to support that claim. If Plaintiff was 21 attempting to bring a gender discrimination claim under the United States Constitution, 22 without supporting facts, a conclusory allegation is insufficient to waive the 23 administration exhaustion requirements.

24 1 Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff was attempting to bring a gender discrimination 2 claim under other federal or state law, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Federal 3 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because her allegation was conclusory and 4 unsupported by facts.

5 III. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's 7 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim is 8 GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 10 Dated this 10th day of January, 2024. 11 12 A 13 Theresa L. Fricke 14 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24