Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedFebruary 23, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-01701

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Karen Louisa Williams, No. CV-20-01701-PHX-GMS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) 17 Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 18 (Doc. 24.) For the reasons below, Defendant’s Motion is granted. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Karen Williams (“Plaintiff”) is appealing the denial of social security disability 21 benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 1 at 2.) According to the Complaint, Plaintiff 22 submitted a request for benefits to the Social Security Administration, which denied the 23 request on July 6, 2020. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff filed this appeal on August 31, 2020, 24 alleging that the decision was erroneous because she did not have anyone to speak on her 25 behalf during the administrative process. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Defendant now moves to dismiss 26 the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiff failed 27 to exhaust administrative remedies at the Social Security Administration, and this Court 28 does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. (Doc. 24.) 1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and federal subject-matter 3 jurisdiction must exist at the time an action is commenced. See Morongo Band of Mission 4 Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Because of 5 its import, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by 6 the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); Attys Tr. v. Videotape Comput. Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 7 593, 594–95 (9th Cir. 1996). “A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the 8 burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. 9 McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). “If the court determines at any time that it 10 lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 12(h)(3). 12 “Section 405(g) provides that an individual who has been denied SSDI/SSI benefits 13 may seek judicial review of ‘any final decision’ of the Commissioner.” Kildare v. Saenz, 14 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). “A final decision has two elements: (1) presentment 15 of the claim to the Commissioner, and (2) complete exhaustion of administrative 16 remedies.” Id. 17 The first element, which is jurisdictional and non-waviable, “is the requirement that 18 a claim for benefits shall have been presented to the [Commissioner].” Bowen v. City of 19 New York, 476 U.S. 467, 483 (1986). The “presentment requirement is satisfied when an 20 individual makes a claim for benefits, and the [Commissioner] determines that the claimant 21 meets the eligibility requirements for those benefits.” Briggs v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1132, 22 1139 (9th Cir. 1989). Presentment can also “be fulfilled by contesting tentative agency 23 determinations.” Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1987). 24 The second requirement, which is not jurisdictional and can be waived, is that “the 25 administrative remedies prescribed by the [Commissioner] be exhausted.” Bowen, 476 26 U.S. at 483 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 (1976)). A district court will 27 waive the final decision’s exhaustion element if the claimant satisfies a three-part test: “the 28 claim must be (1) collateral to a substantive claim of entitlement (collaterality), 1 (2) colorable in its showing that denial of relief will cause irreparable harm (irreparability), 2 and (3) one whose resolution would not serve the purposes of exhaustion (futility).” 3 Johnson v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1993); Briggs, 886 F.2d at 1139. If the 4 requirement is not waived, administrative exhaustion requires (1) an initial determination; 5 (2) reconsideration; (3) a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”); and 6 (4) review before the Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900(a), 416.1407, 416.1414, 7 416.1468. 8 Here, Plaintiff does not allege that she contested the agency determination, nor does 9 she allege that she has exhausted administrative remedies. (Docs. 1, 27.) She does not try 10 to establish waiver. (Docs. 1, 27.) In short, Plaintiff has not shown that she has met either 11 requirement to litigate in this Court. Moreover, the entirety of Plaintiff’s statement of the 12 claim is “I am currently homeless[;] I did not have any 3rd parties to speak [o]n [m]y 13 behalf.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Even if this assertion is true, that fact alone does not establish legal 14 error in the administrative determination. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish this 15 Court’s jurisdiction as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).1 Defendant’s 16 Motion is granted. 17 Because Plaintiff cannot establish waiver, she must request reconsideration by the 18 agency and show “good cause” for missing the deadline to request review. 20 C.F.R. 19 § 416.1411 (“Examples of circumstances where good cause may exist include, but are not 20 limited to, the following situations . . . You were seriously ill and were prevented from 21 contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person.”).2 After

22 1 The Court recognizes that Fort Bend County v. Davis may have changed the jurisdictional analysis of district courts hearing social security appeals. 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019). Davis 23 held that Congress must have made a requirement “clearly” jurisdictional in order for courts to treat it as such. Id. (“If the Legislature clearly states that a [prescription] count[s] 24 as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed . . . [b]ut when Congress does not rank a [prescription] as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as 25 nonjurisdictional in character.”) Whether § 405(g)’s “final decision” requirement is jurisdictional has not been raised here, nor has the Ninth Circuit precedent been directly 26 overturned. Accordingly, the Court follows the Ninth Circuit precedent. Even if the requirement is not jurisdictional, however, the result would be the same in this case because 27 Plaintiff’s Complaint is sparse, and dismissal would be appropriate under

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Karen Louisa Williams, No. CV-20-01701-PHX-GMS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) 17 Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 18 (Doc. 24.) For the reasons below, Defendant’s Motion is granted. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Karen Williams (“Plaintiff”) is appealing the denial of social security disability 21 benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 1 at 2.) According to the Complaint, Plaintiff 22 submitted a request for benefits to the Social Security Administration, which denied the 23 request on July 6, 2020. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff filed this appeal on August 31, 2020, 24 alleging that the decision was erroneous because she did not have anyone to speak on her 25 behalf during the administrative process. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Defendant now moves to dismiss 26 the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiff failed 27 to exhaust administrative remedies at the Social Security Administration, and this Court 28 does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. (Doc. 24.) 1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and federal subject-matter 3 jurisdiction must exist at the time an action is commenced. See Morongo Band of Mission 4 Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Because of 5 its import, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by 6 the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); Attys Tr. v. Videotape Comput. Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 7 593, 594–95 (9th Cir. 1996). “A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the 8 burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. 9 McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). “If the court determines at any time that it 10 lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 12(h)(3). 12 “Section 405(g) provides that an individual who has been denied SSDI/SSI benefits 13 may seek judicial review of ‘any final decision’ of the Commissioner.” Kildare v. Saenz, 14 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). “A final decision has two elements: (1) presentment 15 of the claim to the Commissioner, and (2) complete exhaustion of administrative 16 remedies.” Id. 17 The first element, which is jurisdictional and non-waviable, “is the requirement that 18 a claim for benefits shall have been presented to the [Commissioner].” Bowen v. City of 19 New York, 476 U.S. 467, 483 (1986). The “presentment requirement is satisfied when an 20 individual makes a claim for benefits, and the [Commissioner] determines that the claimant 21 meets the eligibility requirements for those benefits.” Briggs v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1132, 22 1139 (9th Cir. 1989). Presentment can also “be fulfilled by contesting tentative agency 23 determinations.” Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1987). 24 The second requirement, which is not jurisdictional and can be waived, is that “the 25 administrative remedies prescribed by the [Commissioner] be exhausted.” Bowen, 476 26 U.S. at 483 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 (1976)). A district court will 27 waive the final decision’s exhaustion element if the claimant satisfies a three-part test: “the 28 claim must be (1) collateral to a substantive claim of entitlement (collaterality), 1 (2) colorable in its showing that denial of relief will cause irreparable harm (irreparability), 2 and (3) one whose resolution would not serve the purposes of exhaustion (futility).” 3 Johnson v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1993); Briggs, 886 F.2d at 1139. If the 4 requirement is not waived, administrative exhaustion requires (1) an initial determination; 5 (2) reconsideration; (3) a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”); and 6 (4) review before the Appeals Council. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900(a), 416.1407, 416.1414, 7 416.1468. 8 Here, Plaintiff does not allege that she contested the agency determination, nor does 9 she allege that she has exhausted administrative remedies. (Docs. 1, 27.) She does not try 10 to establish waiver. (Docs. 1, 27.) In short, Plaintiff has not shown that she has met either 11 requirement to litigate in this Court. Moreover, the entirety of Plaintiff’s statement of the 12 claim is “I am currently homeless[;] I did not have any 3rd parties to speak [o]n [m]y 13 behalf.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Even if this assertion is true, that fact alone does not establish legal 14 error in the administrative determination. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish this 15 Court’s jurisdiction as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).1 Defendant’s 16 Motion is granted. 17 Because Plaintiff cannot establish waiver, she must request reconsideration by the 18 agency and show “good cause” for missing the deadline to request review. 20 C.F.R. 19 § 416.1411 (“Examples of circumstances where good cause may exist include, but are not 20 limited to, the following situations . . . You were seriously ill and were prevented from 21 contacting us in person, in writing, or through a friend, relative, or other person.”).2 After

22 1 The Court recognizes that Fort Bend County v. Davis may have changed the jurisdictional analysis of district courts hearing social security appeals. 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019). Davis 23 held that Congress must have made a requirement “clearly” jurisdictional in order for courts to treat it as such. Id. (“If the Legislature clearly states that a [prescription] count[s] 24 as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed . . . [b]ut when Congress does not rank a [prescription] as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as 25 nonjurisdictional in character.”) Whether § 405(g)’s “final decision” requirement is jurisdictional has not been raised here, nor has the Ninth Circuit precedent been directly 26 overturned. Accordingly, the Court follows the Ninth Circuit precedent. Even if the requirement is not jurisdictional, however, the result would be the same in this case because 27 Plaintiff’s Complaint is sparse, and dismissal would be appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 28 2 The Social Security Administration’s website provides information on how an adverse 1 || that, she must fully exhaust the administrative process before returning to federal court to 2|| appeal. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Because Plaintiff fails to establish jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 8, the case is || dismissed. Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. 7\| Civ. P. 12(B)(1) for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. || Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action. 10 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2022. ll - A Whacrsay Fotos Micrrey 13 Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decision may be reconsidered or appealed to the Appeals Council. What Do I Need to Know About Requesting a Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge, Soc. Sec. Admin., Information. About Requesting Review. of an Administrative. Law Judge's’ Hearing 28 | Decision, Soc. Sec. Admin., https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/appeals_process.html (last visited Feb. 18, 2022). -4-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack