Scott Tinsley, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-09427
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT TINSLEY, et al., Case No. 24-cv-09427-AMO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 20 Defendants. 11

12 Before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss the Petition filed by Scott Tinsley, 13 and his stepfather, William Jeffrey Oliver, acting pro se, against the United States and the Social 14 Security Administration (“SSA”). Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the relevant 15 legal authority, and good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO 16 AMEND. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Tinsley is a developmentally disabled adult who has been receiving Social Security 19 benefits since he was 18 years old. Dkt. No. 1 (“Petition”) at ¶ 2. A private company, Regional 20 Center, that serves disabled individuals had been receiving Tinsley’s Social Security check and 21 paying his bills, including rent, from those funds as a representative payee. Id. ¶¶ 1, 2. At some 22 point, due to an administrative hold, Social Security payments stopped, and the Regional Center 23 stopped sending Tinsley’s rent payments. Id. When the rent payments stopped, Tinsley’s landlord 24 evicted him. 1 Id. ¶¶ 2, 3. Tinsley is now living in a group home. Id. ¶ 12. That facility has not 25 1 Though Tinsley purports to assert a cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief against 26 his former landlord, KCM Brentwood, the Court dismissed, without leave to amend, the allegations against that entity in a separate suit Tinsley brought in 2023. See Tinsley v. KCM 27 Brentwood, LLC, No. 23-cv-00587-AMO, 2025 WL 107869 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2025). The 1 received rent since April 2024. Id. 2 Tinsley alleges that the Regional Center had a duty to resolve the non-payment issue but 3 never contacted him or the SSA to restore his benefits. Id. ¶ 2. Tinsley has made calls and sent 4 letters to the SSA and has met with SSA personnel. Id. The SSA has “refused to do anything.” 5 Id. Tinsley is unsure about the correct amount of his Social Security benefits or the amount the 6 Regional Center has kept. Id. ¶ 3. Regional Center “will not disclose anything . . . regarding the 7 accounting ledgers they maintain and how they allocate money.” Id. ¶ 14. Tinsley alleges that he 8 is not receiving his deceased father’s death benefit and that the Regional Center is not filing an 9 annual report with the SSA, though it is required of representative payees. Id. ¶ 5. 10 Based on their dealings with the Regional Center and the SSA, Tinsley and Oliver, 11 purportedly acting as Private Attorneys General and whistleblowers under the False Claims Act, 12 and without the assistance of counsel, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the United 13 States and the SSA. Dkt. No. 1. In the Petition, they assert a cause of action for an accounting of 14 Social Security funds against the SSA. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. They seek “corrective actions by the [SSA] 15 to enforce the Social Security Act and regulations to ensure that Regional Center disburse[s] Scott 16 Tinsley’s [S]ocial Security disability funds in a manner that complies with federal law[,]” an order 17 compelling the Regional Center “to supply an accounting of the use and disbursement of funds in 18 accordance with laws and regulations in force,” and an order compelling the SSA “to disburse rent 19 money . . . on a consistent basis so that there are no gaps or delays in the payment of rent.” Id. ¶ 20 24. They also seek “an investigation of the accounting records of Regional Center to determine 21 whether or not the False Claims Act was violated by Regional Center and to determine the 22 distribution of funds by Regional Center[,]” and “restoration of the full amount of Scott Tinsley’s 23 Social Security Payments,” including his deceased father’s benefits, “in accordance with Federal 24 Law and for an accounting of the Social Security Funds in accordance with Federal law and 25

26 summarize the allegations Tinsley reasserts in this action against KCM Brentwood. Additionally, while the Regional Center is also not a party to this action, the Court summarizes the allegations 27 that pertain to it only to the extent relevant to Tinsley’s claims against the SSA. The Court does 1 regulations.” Id. ¶¶ 25, 26. They ask that a special master be appointed “for the purpose of 2 investigation and disclosure of the accounting records of Regional Center of the use and 3 disbursement of Scott Tinsley’s Social Security Disability Funds by Regional Center[,]” and ask 4 for “court ordered supervision by Social Security so that there will be no more gaps in payments to 5 Scott Tinsley’s group home for the rent or for Scott Tinsley’s basic living expenses.” Id. ¶¶ 19, 6 26. 7 On April 9, 2025, the government moved to dismiss the Petition. Dkt. No. 20 (“Mot.”). 8 Petitioners filed their opposition on April 24, 2025. Dkt. No. 22 (“Opp.”). The government’s 9 reply followed on May 9, 2025. Dkt. No. 26 (“Reply”). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 The government contends dismissal is appropriate because (1) mandamus jurisdiction is 12 lacking, (2) to the extent the Petition should be construed as a complaint, the Court lacks subject 13 matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, and (3) to the extent the Petition purports to 14 assert a cause of action, it fails to state a plausible claim for relief and is barred by collateral 15 estoppel. Mot. at 11-22. Because the lack of mandamus jurisdiction would warrant dismissal, the 16 Court begins its analysis there. 17 “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which may be available to compel a federal 18 official to perform a duty only if: (1) the individual’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the official’s 19 duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no 20 other adequate remedy is available.” Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation 21 omitted). “Courts typically decline to exercise mandamus jurisdiction in matters involving Social 22 Security benefits.” Turner v. O’Malley, No. CV 24-5507-MRA(E), 2025 WL 923740, at *3 (C.D. 23 Cal. Mar. 25, 2025) (citations omitted). 24 Dismissal is appropriate here. Even if Petitioners had satisfied the first two elements for 25 mandamus relief, they do not meet the third. To the extent Petitioners dispute whether Tinsley has 26 received the appropriate amount of Social Security benefits, seek relief from a determination by 27 the SSA as to Tinsley’s entitlement to his deceased father’s benefits, wish to appoint a new 1 such as ensuring regular timely payments or proper allocation of funds by the Regional Center, 2 they must first avail themselves of the administrative scheme “culminating in review under 42 3 U.S.C. § 405(g)” which is “the exclusive avenue for . . . to present . . . claims.” Hironymous v. 4 Bowen, 800 F.2d 888, 893 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Laurie Q. v. Callahan, 973 F. Supp. 925, 933 5 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (“[T]he Act provides plaintiffs with ample opportunity to appeal the 6 representative payee designations[.]”); Harris v. Acts Syrene Apartments, No. 22-CV-00405-JCS, 7 2022 WL 767190, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2022) (“The Social Security Act and associated 8 regulations establish administrative procedures for investigating claims related to payment of 9 disability benefits and providing claimants an opportunity to be heard.”) (citations omitted); 20 10 C.F.R. § 416.641 (“A representative payee who misuses your benefits is responsible for paying 11 back misused benefits. [The SSA] will make every reasonable effort to obtain restitution of 12 misused benefits so that we can repay these benefits to you.”). 13 Here, the allegations that Petitioners made calls and sent letters to the SSA and met with 14 personnel, Compl. ¶ 2, do not satisfy the exhaustion requirement.2 Petitioners make no allegations 15 that they have presented a claim to the SSA, that they have appealed any initial determination by 16 the SSA, or that they have pursued review under any of the SSA’s processes for any of the issues 17 raised in the Petition. At best, Petitioners’ allegations indicate an effort to resolve issues with the 18 SSA informally, but that is insufficient to demonstrate that the SSA’s procedures cannot provide 19 Petitioners the relief they seek in this action. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 20 2003) (finding that Social Security claimants had failed to meet the third requirement for 21 mandamus relief because “administrative review could correct the individual errors alleged”); 22 Laurie Q., 973 F. Supp. at 933 (declining to exercise mandamus jurisdiction where plaintiffs, by 23 making no attempt to appeal the SSA’s representative payee designations, had not exhausted all 24 other avenues of relief); Harris, 2022 WL 767190, at *6 (finding allegations that failure to receive 25

26 2 And because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate exhaustion, to the extent the Petition is based on alleged due process violations by the SSA, it is not viable. See Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1086 27 (“Appellants have not been deprived of procedural due process until they have exhausted their 1 benefits due to debit card issues and possible incorrect instructions from SSA employees were 2 insufficient to show that the plaintiff would “be unable to obtain relief through the administrative 3 procedures established by the [SSA]”). 4 Because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies, the 5 Court addresses whether they have established that a waiver of that requirement is warranted. 6 “Waiver is proper if the claim to be reviewed is (1) collateral to a substantive claim of entitlement 7 (collaterality), (2) colorable in its showing that refusal to the relief sought will cause an injury 8 which retroactive payments cannot remedy (irreparability), and (3) one whose resolution would 9 not serve the purposes of exhaustion (futility).” Briggs v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 10 1989) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 11 Assuming, without deciding, that Petitioners satisfy the first two requirements for waiver, 12 they have failed to show futility. A claimant can demonstrate futility by showing that “[r]equiring 13 him to exhaust administrative remedies would not serve the policies underlying exhaustion.” 14 Briggs, 886 F.2d at 1140 (internal quotations and citation omitted; modification in original). That 15 is not the case here. “[T]he exhaustion requirement allows the agency to compile a detailed 16 factual record and apply agency expertise in administering its own regulations. The requirement 17 also conserves judicial resources. The agency will correct its own errors through administrative 18 review.” Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1083-84 (internal quotations and citation omitted). With this in 19 mind, the assertions in Petitioners’ Opposition that this is an exigent circumstance, that it is 20 “nearly impossible” to change to a new representative payee once one has been appointed, and that 21 the SSA has “refused to do anything about the issues described in th[e] Petition,” Opp. at 7, 10, 22 18,” do not entitle Petitioners to bypass the SSA’s procedures.3 Rather, Petitioners grievances – 23 whether the amount of Tinsley’s benefits are correct, whether those amounts have been allocated 24 to their designated purposes (and in what amounts), and whether the current representative payee 25 3 For this reason, Petitioners’ contention that Section 405(g) provides an independent basis for 26 jurisdiction fails. Social Security claims “may be heard in district court only pursuant to the judicial review provisions included in the Social Security Act itself and after the plaintiff has 27 exhausted all available administrative remedies” and presented the claim to the Secretary. Doe v. 1 should be replaced because it is stealing Tinsley’s benefits, are all questions that require the 2 extensive factual development and investigation that the SSA’s administrative procedures are 3 intended to facilitate. Exhaustion under these circumstances is thus not futile. See Kildare, 325 4 F.3d at 1084 (finding that administrative review was not futile where the plaintiffs alleged that 5 defendants “committed a host of individual errors in their cases by disregarding the regulations[,]” 6 which could only be assessed “in the context of individual disability proceedings and require[d] 7 development of individual factual records”); cf. Briggs, 886 F.2d at 1140 (finding futility where 8 the Secretary made no showing that “a detailed record might assist a court in determining the 9 merits of appellants’ straightforward statutory and constitutional challenge”); Doe, 2009 WL 10 2566720, at *7 (finding exhaustion would be futile where the plaintiff asserted constitutional 11 claims that were severable from his benefits appeal and “a more detailed factual record concerning 12 plaintiff’s individual circumstances [wa]s likely to do little to cast any additional light on either 13 the Constitution or on Congress’s intent in the Rehabilitation Act”). 14 Because Petitioners have not exhausted their administrative remedies or shown that a 15 waiver from such requirements is warranted, this Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over 16 Petitioners’ dispute with the SSA4 and dismissal is thus appropriate. Having concluded that 17 dismissal is appropriate because the Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction, the Court does not reach 18 the government’s remaining arguments regarding dismissal. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth above, the government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 21 However, the Court will allow Petitioners to file an amended pleading. To aid in the preparation 22 of that document, the Court encourages Petitioners to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help 23 Desk – a free service for pro se litigants – by calling (415) 782-8982 to make an appointment to 24 obtain legal assistance from a licensed attorney. More information about the program is available 25

26 4 The Court also lacks mandamus jurisdiction to the extent Petitioners seek an order compelling the Regional Center, a non-party, to take certain actions. See Zoellner v. City of Arcata, No. 3:18- 27 CV-04471-JSC, 2024 WL 4700633, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2024) (“Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 1 online at the Court’s website < https://cand.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself/jdc-legal-help- 2 || center-san-francisco-oakland-courthouses >. To ensure Petitioners have a meaningful opportunity 3 to pursue this free assistance, the Court will set an extended deadline of February 27, 2026 for 4 || Petitioners to file an amended pleading. Should Petitioners fail to file an amended pleading by 5 that date, the Court will dismiss this action without further notice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 6, 2026 Med =

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28