Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 TERRY S., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C22-1667 RSM 9 v. ORDER GRANTING 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DISMISS 11 Defendant. 12

13 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 14 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 18. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff has 15 not established that a live controversy exists in this case, the Court should dismiss the case 16 pursuant to Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1). Id. at 1. After considering the record, the 17 Court grants Defendant’s Motion and dismisses this case with prejudice. 18 BACKGROUND 19 On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint indicating Defendant 20 denied his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Supplemental Security Income 21 (“SSI”) benefits, Children’s Disability Benefits, Widower Insurance Benefits, and other benefits 22 under the Social Security Act (“the Act”). Dkt. 9 at 2. Attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint were 23 the following: a letter from the Internal Revenue Service regarding a report Plaintiff requested, a 1 copy of Plaintiff’s driver’s license, a business card from an employee at H&R Block, a letter 2 from the King County Superior Court Clerk regarding an unrelated case, a letter from a law firm 3 dated February 13, 2017 regarding an unrelated case, contact information for an attorney and 4 medical and dental institutions, receipts for certified mailing from the U.S. Postal Service, and a 5 complaint filed in King County Superior Court. Dkt. 9-1 at 1–9. Plaintiff also filed additional 6 exhibits, including several documents from King County Superior Court, more certified mailing 7 receipts, various contact information, and an in forma pauperis application. Dkts. 12, 17, 19, 20. 8 On March 7, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion. Dkt. 18. Defendant also 9 submitted a declaration from Sierra Burgess, Social Security Specialist, and other exhibits 10 regarding Plaintiff’s benefits. Dkts. 18-1–18-5. According to the declaration, Plaintiff was a

11 recipient of SSI benefits from October 1999 until December 2006 when he lost eligibility after 12 his income exceeded the annual earnings limit under the Act. Dkt. 18-1 at 1–2. After the agency 13 determined Plaintiff was overpaid in November and December 2006, Plaintiff remitted payment 14 in 2008. Dkts. 18-1 at 2; 18-2–18-4. The declaration also states Plaintiff is a current recipient of 15 DIB and has been receiving monthly DIB payments since April 2005. Dkt. 18-5. The record 16 does not show that Plaintiff has any pending applications or appeals before the agency. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Defendant contends the Court must dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter 19 jurisdiction. Dkt. 8 at 6. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and “possess only that power 20 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511

21 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). When presented with a motion to dismiss 22 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that this Court 23 has jurisdiction. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When presented with a motion to 1 dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the Court favorably views “the facts alleged to support 2 jurisdiction.” McNatt v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Boettcher v. Sec. 3 Health & Human Servs., 759 F.2d 719, 720 (9th Cir. 1985)). This Court has statutory 4 jurisdiction to review “any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a 5 hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A plaintiff seeking a judicial review of the denial of their benefits 6 under the Social Security Act must first exhaust the remedies set forth in the Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7 § 405(g); Subia v. Comm. of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2001); Bass v. Soc. Sec. 8 Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989). Section 405(g) of the Act specifically states, “that a 9 civil action may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the 10 [Commissioner], and (2) the [Commissioner] has made a final decision on the claim.” Bass, 872

11 F.2d at 833. A claimant obtains the Commissioner’s “final decision” about his or her entitlement 12 to benefits only after completing the four steps of the administrative review process: (1) initial 13 determination; (2) reconsideration determination; (3) hearing before an Administrative Law 14 Judge (“ALJ”); and (4) Appeals Council review. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900, 416.1400. 15 In this case, there is no indication Plaintiff has appealed the SSI benefits terminated in 16 November and December 2006. There is also no indication Plaintiff was ever awarded, let alone 17 denied, Children’s Disability Benefits and Widower’s Insurance Benefits. The record instead 18 shows Plaintiff was approved for DIB benefits and received them as recently as January 2023. 19 See Dkt. 18-5 at 1. As Plaintiff’s attachments and exhibits do not show that he has been denied 20 Social Security benefits by Defendant, that he appealed the Commissioner’s denial, and that he

21 has completed the necessary administrative process to acquire a “final decision by the 22 Commissioner,” Plaintiff is unable invoke a judicial review pursuant to the Act. Accordingly, 23 the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby finds Plaintiff has not established 3 subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED and this case is 4 DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 6 DATED this 5th day of April, 2023.

7 A 8

9 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23