Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Keith THOMAS, Case No.: 25-cv-2407-AGS-KSC 4 ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED Plaintiff, 5 COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE v. TO AMEND AND DENYING 6 MOTION TO RECONSIDER (ECF 5)

7 John DOE, 8 Defendant. 9 The Court must screen plaintiff Keith Thomas’s amended complaint against an 10 unknown Social Security Administration supervisor, arising from an alleged Supplemental 11 Security Income overpayment notice. (See ECF 3, at 2; ECF 4.) The original complaint 12 was dismissed because courts “may only review a ‘final decision of the Commissioner of 13 Social Security made after a hearing.’” (ECF 3, at 2 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).) And 14 Thomas did not allege that he had made it through Social Security’s required “four-step 15 process” or that he had received a final decision such that he could “obtain review from a 16 federal court.” (Id. (quoting Smith v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 471, 475–76 (2019)).) In fact, his 17 initial complaint’s attachments made it appear that he stopped at the first step. (See id.) 18 Nevertheless, the Court provided Thomas an opportunity to “amend his complaint 19 to address the deficiencies” by showing he had “already proceeded through the Social 20 Security Administration’s administrative process” or “that he has some legal basis to be 21 excused from doing so.” (ECF 3, at 3.) In his amended complaint, Thomas unsuccessfully 22 attempts both. 23 The mandatory four-step process. Thomas attached a letter suggesting he requested 24 a hearing before an Administrate Law Judge, although nothing indicates he has received 25 one yet. (See ECF 4-1, at 9.) That moves him farther down the line towards the second 26 step. See Smith, 587 U.S. at 476. But it still doesn’t show he complied with all four steps 27 such that this Court may review a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 28 1 made after a hearing.” See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 2 Other legal basis. Thomas also relies on other portions of federal law to bring his 3 suit, rather than the Social Security Act’s judicial-review provision, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 4 He points to various provisions of “42 U.S.C. § 1382,” which set, among other things, the 5 statutory eligibility standards for supplemental security income. (See ECF 4, at 4.) But as 6 this Court pointed out in its last order, the law requires that SSI eligibility determinations 7 be “subject to judicial review as provided in section 405(g) of this title.” See 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1383(c)(3); see also Smith, 587 U.S. at 475 (noting that “§ 405(g) sets the terms of 9 judicial review” for supplemental security income challenges). 10 That leaves Thomas’s statutory citation to “42 U.S.C. § 1983,” which rests on even 11 weaker ground. (See ECF 4, at 4.) That law provides a cause of action against any “person 12 who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or 13 Territory,” violates a plaintiff’s federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). But the 14 defendant here, an unknown “SSA administrator” (ECF 4, at 1), is a federal employee. And 15 “§ 1983 does not provide a basis for suit against federal agents.” Antoine v. Byers & 16 Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 431 n.2 (1993). 17 Perhaps Thomas intended instead to bring a “Bivens action,” which is similar to a 18 § 1983 suit but offers a more limited version of the same remedies against federal officers. 19 See Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 421 (1988) (noting that “[s]o-called ‘Bivens 20 actions’ for money damages against federal officers have subsequently been permitted” in 21 limited circumstances). But the Supreme Court squarely rejected “a Bivens remedy” for 22 challenges to Social Security benefits decisions. See id. at 420. So even if the Court were 23 to recast Thomas’s § 1983 claim as a Bivens action, it would fail. 24 After two unsuccessful attempts, it’s clear that any further amendments would be 25 futile. Fidelity Fin. Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of S.F., 792 F.2d 1432, 1438 26 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that once “the court has already given the plaintiff an opportunity 27 to amend his complaint” on the same point, the “district court’s discretion to deny leave to 28 [further] amend is particularly broad”). Thomas is not foreclosed from challenging these | |}actions once he has a final decision from the Social Security Commissioner. Until then, 2 however, his claim must be DISMISSED without prejudice and without further leave to 3 |}amend. Smith’s pending motion for reconsideration (ECF 5) of this Court’s prior order is 4 denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to issue a judgment and close this case. 5 Dated: October 15, 2025 7 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 a □□