Smith v. Social Security Administration

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DARREN LEE SMITH, 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C21-5152 RAJ 9 ORDER GRANTING THE v. 10 COMMISSIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss 14 Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 23. 15 DISCUSSION 16 The Commissioner contends the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because 17 Plaintiff did not seek a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or appeal to 18 19 the Appeals Council, and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative appeal remedies 20 before filing this case. Dkt. 23 at 6-7. In Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, 21 Plaintiff concedes he “needs to send these complaints to the SSA before legally being 22 able to sue them.” Dkt. 27 at 2; see also Dkt. 28 at 2. Thus, there is no dispute Plaintiff 23 has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, the Court concludes it 1 lacks jurisdiction over this case. 2 Along with his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a motion 3 requesting “leave of court to amend complaint as well as … to cure all deficiencies, … 4 including filing with the SSA/ Administrative Law Judge[.]” Dkt. 28 at 1; see also Dkt. 5 27 at 1. The Court construes this request as a motion to stay the case while Plaintiff 6 seeks a hearing before an ALJ and, if appropriate, appeals to the Appeals Council. 7 However, because the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court may not retain the case during 8 that time. 9 “[42 U.S.C. §] 405(g) provides that a civil action [appealing a denial of benefits] 10 may be brought only after (1) the claimant has been party to a hearing held by the 11 12 [Commissioner], and (2) the [Commissioner] has made a final decision on the claim.” 13 Bass v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989). “[T]he Commissioner’s 14 decision is not final until the Appeals Council denies review or, if it accepts the case for 15 review, issues its own findings on the merits.” Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 16 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012). “A claimant’s failure to exhaust the procedures set 17 forth in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), deprives the district court of 18 jurisdiction.” Bass, 872 F.2d at 833. 19 Lacking jurisdiction, this Court must dismiss this case. See Ingram v. Comm’r of 20 Soc. Sec., 401 F. App’x 234, 235 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding dismissal without prejudice is 21 appropriate for claims dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); O’Guinn 22 v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (same). However, this Order 23 1 does not prevent Plaintiff from bringing a new case, after exhausting his administrative 2 remedies. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated above, the Commissioner’s motion is GRANTED. The 5 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 6

7 DATED this 17th day of August, 2021.

8 A 9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23