Alex Anderson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Case: 12-14879 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14879
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-23801-WJZ
ALEX ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 15, 2013)
Before HULL, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14879 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Alex Anderson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se complaint,
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which sought judicial review of the Social
Security Administration’s (“SSA”) determination of his monthly amount of
supplemental security income (“SSI”). The district court dismissed Anderson’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Anderson had not yet
received a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and thus had not
exhausted his administrative remedies. After review, we affirm. 1
Federal courts may not review administrative decisions of the SSA except as
provided in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1236
(11th Cir. 1983); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“No findings of fact or decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or
governmental agency except as herein provided”). A social security claimant may
obtain review under § 405(g) by filing a civil action in federal district court, but
only “after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a
hearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added).
Thus, to obtain review in federal court under § 405(g), a social security
claimant must have: (1) presented his claim for benefits to the Commissioner; and
(2) exhausted his administrative remedies. Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217,
1220 (11th Cir. 1997). “This means [the] claimant must have completed each of
1
We review de novo the district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction. Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1255 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003).
2
Case: 12-14879 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 3 of 3
the steps of the administrative review process unless exhaustion has been waived.”
Id. The administrative review process includes an initial determination,
reconsideration, a hearing before an ALJ, and review by the Appeals Council. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.900(a)(1)-(4).2
Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Anderson’s complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties agree that, at the time Anderson
filed his complaint, the SSA had denied Anderson’s administrative claim initially
and on reconsideration, but had not yet acted on Anderson’s request for an ALJ
hearing. In other words, it is undisputed that the ALJ had not yet held a hearing in
Anderson’s case, much less issued a decision that the Appeals Council could
review. Thus, Anderson had not completed the administrative review process, and
there was not a final administrative decision required by § 405(g). Further, the
SSA did not waive exhaustion in this case.
Because Anderson had not exhausted his administrative remedies before
filing his action, the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction
over his complaint.
AFFIRMED.
2
Exhaustion may be excused when the claimant raises only a constitutional issue that is
collateral to consideration of the claim and therefore its resolution falls outside the agency’s
authority. Crayton, 120 F.3d at 1222. Anderson, however, did not allege any constitutional
claims.
3