Ibarra v. Martin O'Malley
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-01037
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 14
Ibarra v. Kijakazi: Judge Illston partly granted and partly denied dismissal, allowing the Social Security appeal and disability-accommodation claim to continue.
Nicolas Ibarra and the Social Security Administration defendant. Ibarra’s Section 504 accommodation claim and administrative appeal continue; his due process and systemic disability abuse claims were dismissed with prejudice, and his proposed reprisal claim was not added.
What happened
In Nicolas Ibarra v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Ibarra, who has schizophrenia and is represented by counsel, challenged the handling of his Supplemental Security Income benefits and requests for communication accommodations. He asserted disability discrimination, due process violations, and a claim he called systemic disability abuse, and also sought review of an administrative judge’s decision about accommodations.
The court denied dismissal of Ibarra’s claim that the Social Security Administration denied him meaningful access to benefits by failing to provide reasonable accommodations. It also denied dismissal of his appeal of the administrative judge’s November 2, 2021 decision about accommodations. The court dismissed the due process and systemic disability abuse claims with prejudice.
Judge Susan Illston also struck the proposed fourth amended complaint, denied Ibarra’s motion to add reprisal allegations, and ordered production of specified administrative records and communications. The case will proceed on the administrative appeal and the disability-discrimination claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The detailed version
- Ibarra v. Martin O'Malley · No. 3:23-cv-01037
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 18, 2023
Background
Nicolas Ibarra, who is represented by counsel, alleged that he has acute and chronic schizophrenia. An administrative law judge initially found him eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits as of September 19, 2017. Before benefits began, Ibarra reported that he owned land in Mexico. The Social Security Administration later determined that he was ineligible because his resources exceeded the program limit based on that property. After further proceedings, Administrative Law Judge MaryAnn Lunderman issued a fully favorable decision on November 2, 2021, finding that Ibarra did not own the property and that his resources did not exceed the eligibility limits.
Ibarra also requested reasonable accommodations, including effective communication with the Social Security Administration. He alleged that the agency denied him meaningful access to its programs because his schizophrenia prevented effective communication. His third amended complaint asserted three causes of action: violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment, and “Efforts of the SSA to not afford plaintiff accommodations; systemic disability abuse continuation.” He also treated the case as an appeal of the administrative judge’s decision concerning reasonable accommodations.
Motion to Dismiss
The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At that stage, the court had to accept properly pleaded facts as true and determine whether they plausibly supported relief.
Section 504 claim
The court DENIED the defendant’s motion to dismiss Ibarra’s Section 504 disability-discrimination claim based on failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Section 504 generally requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability, is otherwise qualified to receive program benefits, was denied those benefits solely because of the disability, and that the program received federal financial assistance or was conducted by an Executive agency.
The court found that, although the complaint could have been clearer, Ibarra alleged that he was denied meaningful access to continuing SSI benefits to which he was otherwise eligible solely because his schizophrenia prevented effective communication with the Social Security Administration. He also alleged multiple attempts to obtain accommodations. The court held that whether the requested accommodations were actually based on his individualized needs was beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss.
Due process claim
The court GRANTED the defendant’s motion to dismiss the due process claim. Ibarra did not provide a clear legal theory supported by facts showing that the agency’s notices were unreasonable given his disability and the agency’s awareness of it. The third amended complaint did not identify the notice he was challenging or explain why it was inadequate.
Because this was Ibarra’s fourth version of the complaint and the court had previously given him a final opportunity to amend, the court dismissed the due process claim with prejudice.
Systemic disability abuse claim
The court GRANTED the defendant’s motion to dismiss the “systemic disability abuse continuation” claim. The court found that the claim’s legal authority was unclear and that its factual allegations were unintelligible and conclusory. Even construing the allegations generously, the complaint did not plausibly allege that Ibarra was the victim of a systemic agency “subterfuge.” Because Ibarra had already made multiple attempts to amend and had not complied with the court’s earlier instructions, the court dismissed this claim with prejudice.
Administrative appeal
The court DENIED the motion to dismiss to the extent it challenged Ibarra’s appeal of Administrative Law Judge Lunderman’s November 2, 2021 decision regarding reasonable accommodations. The court understood the third amended complaint to include an administrative appeal, found that Ibarra adequately alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies, and concluded that the complaint gave the defendant fair notice of the issue and the grounds for the appeal.
The appeal will proceed together with Ibarra’s Section 504 claim.
Proposed fourth amended complaint and reprisal allegations
Ibarra filed a proposed fourth amended complaint that added a reprisal claim. He alleged that the Social Security Administration had agreed to designate two staff members from the Redwood City field office to work with him, then withdrew that accommodation shortly after he filed this lawsuit.
The court DENIED leave to file the proposed fourth amended complaint and STRUCK it from the docket. The court concluded that Ibarra had not identified the legal authority supporting the reprisal claim, had not pleaded plausible facts showing retaliation, and had not explained why the claim—based on facts known before he filed the third amended complaint—could not have been included earlier.
The court also DENIED Ibarra’s administrative motion to amend either the third amended complaint or the proposed fourth amended complaint to add allegations based on an August 2023 letter. The court found that the proposed new evidence would not save the reprisal claim and appeared to indicate that the alleged revocation of the designated staff accommodation had not actually occurred.
Other orders and disposition
The court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the defendant’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The Section 504 claim and the administrative appeal concerning reasonable accommodations remain pending. The due process and systemic disability abuse claims were dismissed with prejudice. The proposed fourth amended complaint was struck from the docket, and the administrative motion to add reprisal allegations was denied.
The court ordered the defendant to produce by November 3, 2023, the administrative record related to the appeal of the November 2, 2021 administrative law judge decision and written communications between Ibarra and the Social Security Administration stemming from the September 14, 2022 request for reasonable accommodations. The court also set an initial case-management conference for November 17, 2023.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.