Mark Charles Hanson v. Andrew Saul ( 2019 )

a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 MARK CHARLES HANSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-08425-FMO.(MAA) 13 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 ¥. 15 16 Commnissoner of Sacial Security, 17 Defendant. ‘18 19 20 On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant. 21 | pursuant to various provisions of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 22 | seeks an:award of disability benefits from the Social Security Cormissioner on two 23 || apparent grounds: for'a neurological disorder (id. at 6) and as a remedy for past. 24 || racial discrimination he experienced in job hiting (id. at 8). The Court orders 25 || Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without 26 || prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 27 The existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction must be presented on the 28 || face of a properly pleaded complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 1 | US. 470, 475 (1998). “A claimant's failure:to exhaust the procedures set:forth in 2 || the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), deptives-the district court of 3 | jurisdiction.” Bass y. Social Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir, 1989) (citing 4 || Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617 (1984)). “Section 405(g) provides that an 5 || individual who has been denied [Social Security] benefits may seek judicial review 6 || of ‘any final decision’ of the Commissioner.” Kildarev. Saeriz, 325 F.3d 1078, 7. | 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). “A final decision has two elements: (1) presentment of the 8 | claim to the Commissioner, and (2) complete exhaustion of administrative 9 || remedies.” Jd. (citing Johnson v. Shalala, 2 F.3d-918, 921 (9th Cir. 1993)). 10: || Together, these two elements generally requirée.that a claimant present a claim to 11 || the Commissioner: after receiving an initial decision, seek reconsideration; after 12 || receiving:a decision on reconsideration, seek a hearing before an Administrative 13 || Law Judge (“ALJ”); and after receiving a decision by the ALJ, seek review by the 14 || Appeals Council. See Bass, 872 F.2d at 833. 15 The first element (presentment) is jurisdictional and nonwaivable, while the 16 || second element (exhaustion) is non-jurisdictional and waivable by the 17 || Commissioner or the Court. See Boettcher v. Secretary of Health and Human 18 || Services, 759 F.2d 719, 721 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US, 19 || 319, 328 (1976)); see also Johnson, 2 F.3d at 921. Here, the face of the Complaint 20 || contains no indication that: Plaintiff satisfied either of the two.required elements, but 21 | the first. required element appears to be dispositive here. The nonwaivable 22 || presentment requirement generally is satisfied by the filing of an application for 23 || benefits. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S 67, 75 (1976) (recognizing that 42 U.S.C. 24 || § 405(g) “establishes filing of an. application as a nonwaivable condition of 25 || jurisdiction”). Because Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege that he ever □□□□□□□□ 26 || application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, he has not properly 27 || pled subject matter jurisdiction. See Weinberger v. Salfi; 422 U.S. 749, 764 (1975) 28 (holding that a federal court had no jurisdiction where the complaint was deficient 1 || in that it contained no allegation that class members ever filed an application with 2 || the Social Security Commissioner). 3 4 ORDER 5 Within twenty-one (21) days after the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall show 6 || good cause in writing, if any exists, why the Court should not recommend that this 7 |) action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 8 || Failure to respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be 9 || dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to 10 || prosecute. 12 || DATED: October 25, 2019 13 ta MARIA Ll ‘5 UNITE TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28