Melvin Brecht v. Lynn Marten ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELVIN BRECHT, No. 09-35471
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 9:09-CV-00036-DWM-
JCL
v.
LYNN MARTEN; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Melvin Brecht, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his action alleging various claims
related to the stoppage of his Social Security benefits and their payment to the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Idaho Department of Corrections instead. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction related to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Kildare v. Saenz,
325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), and for lack of personal jurisdiction, Davis v.
American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 861 F.2d 1159, 1161 (9th Cir. 1988). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice the claims against
defendant Marten, the Assistant Regional Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Brecht failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) (judicial review only available after “any final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing”); see also Califano v. Sanders,
430 U.S. 99, 101-02 (1977) (claimant must exhaust four-step administrative review
process prior to federal judicial review).
The district court also properly dismissed without prejudice all claims
against the Idaho Department of Corrections and the governor of Idaho because
Brecht failed to establish that they had the requisite minimum contacts with the
forum for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. See
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2004)
2 09-35471
(describing grounds for exercise of general or specific personal jurisdiction over
nonresident defendants); see also Davis, 861 F.2d at 1161 (explaining that the
plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate).
We grant Brecht’s motions to add arguments to his brief. However, because
we affirm dismissal based on lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, we
do not consider these and Brecht’s other contentions regarding the merits.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-35471