Rivas v. Kojakazi

Background

Rivas’s first amended complaint sought judicial review under Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act of a May 2023 decision by an administrative law judge. The Acting Commissioner moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Exhaustion and jurisdiction

Section 405(g) allows judicial review after a final decision by the Commissioner. The court explained that failing to complete the required administrative process deprives the district court of jurisdiction. Rivas discussed contacts with Social Security Administration staff concerning a request for Appeals Council review, but she had not presented those facts in a declaration or in her first amended complaint.

The agency submitted a declaration stating that it had no record of a request for Appeals Council review. After the hearing, the agency submitted a supplemental declaration stating that no such request appeared in its records until October 23, 2023. The parties did not dispute that Appeals Council review was then pending and that there was no final decision available for judicial review. The court also rejected waiver of the exhaustion requirement, finding that Rivas did not satisfy the requirements concerning whether the issue was collateral, whether failure to review it immediately would cause irreparable harm, and whether pursuing an appeal would be futile.

Other claims

Rivas argued that the case could proceed on claims separate from her request for review of the Social Security benefits determination. The court stated that, even if the complaint were read that way, those claims would not survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). For the Rehabilitation Act Section 504 claim, the complaint did not allege facts supporting an inference that Rivas was denied a Social Security Administration program benefit solely because of a disability. For the due-process claim, it did not allege facts showing that the available procedural safeguards were insufficient. For the claim described as “systemic disability abuse continuation,” the complaint did not identify the legal authority supporting liability.

Ruling

Judge William Alsup granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. The order dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because administrative review was pending and there was no final decision. It also concluded that the separately construed Rehabilitation Act, due-process, and “systemic disability abuse continuation” claims failed under Rule 12(b)(6). The order stated that dismissal of those potentially separate claims was without prejudice to seeking leave to amend. Rivas could move by December 1, 2023, at noon, for permission to file an amended complaint, with a redlined proposed complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order and in the Commissioner’s motion. The court also granted Rivas’s administrative motion to file declarations, while noting that the phone-call and fax-receipt evidence did not establish exhaustion.