Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO R.,1 Case No.: 3:26-cv-00191-BTM-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR SINGLE PAYMENT 14 15 SOCIAL SECURITY [ECF NO. 6, 8] ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendant Social Security Administration’s motion to 20 dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 21 motion. (ECF No. 6.) The Court also DENIES as moot the Plaintiff’s motion for payment 22 of his funds in a single payment. (ECF No. 8.) 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On June 7, 2018, the Social Security Administration (the “Agency”) found that the 25 Plaintiff was eligible for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security 26 Act. (See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), at 15.) The Agency also found that the Plaintiff’s 27 28 1 Orders in Social Security cases adjudicated in the Southern District of California “refer to any 1 eligibility for the disability benefits began in 2012. (Id.) On May 10, 2022, the Agency 2 determined that Plaintiff was no longer disabled. (Id.) The Plaintiff challenged this 3 determination. (Id.) After two hearings, an Administrative Law Judge issued a fully 4 favorable decision for the Plaintiff on September 17, 2025. (Id. at 25.) The Administrative 5 Law Judge found that the Plaintiff’s disability “did not end” and that his disability benefits 6 would continue. (Id.) 7 Aside from disability benefits, the Plaintiff applied for supplemental security income 8 benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on October 21, 2021. (Id. at 28.) On 9 November 18, 2021, the Agency denied the supplemental income benefits because the 10 Plaintiff said he did “not want to file a claim” for these benefits. (Id.) The Plaintiff applied 11 again for supplemental income benefits on April 26, 2023. (ECF No. 6-2, Ex. A (“Income 12 Decision”), at 2.) On January 19, 2026, the Agency approved supplemental income 13 benefits for the Plaintiff. (Id.) The Agency agreed to provide back payments to the Plaintiff 14 as far back as May 2023. (Id. at 3.) 15 The Plaintiff argues he is owed back payments as far back as November 18, 2021, 16 when his first application for supplemental income benefits was denied. (Compl., 10–11.) 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 The Agency moves to dismiss the Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim under 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court 20 will “take all allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the light most 21 favorable to” the Plaintiff, the nonmoving party. Steinle v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 22 919 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 23 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995)). The Plaintiff must plead “sufficient factual matter, 24 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 25 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 26 The Court may dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when a complaint fails to plead a cognizable 27 legal theory or sufficient facts to support a legal claim. Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 28 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2019). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 An applicant for supplemental income benefits “must generally proceed through a 3 four-step process before they can obtain review from a federal court.” Smith v. Berryhill, 4 587 U.S. 471, 475–76 (2019). First, an applicant must ask the Agency for an initial 5 decision on his eligibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). Second, he must request 6 reconsideration of the initial decision. Id. Third, he must request a hearing in front of an 7 Administrative Law Judge. Id. Fourth, he must ask the Appeals Council to review the 8 Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Id. Once these four steps are complete, the Agency 9 has made its final decision. Id. An applicant may then file a claim in federal district court 10 to challenge the Agency’s “final decision.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court may not review 11 an applicant’s claim against the Agency’s final decision through any other process. Id. 12 § 405(h) (“No . . . decision . . . shall be reviewed . . . except as herein provided.”). In other 13 words, an applicant must “exhaust” the four-step process before he can file in federal court. 14 A federal court may waive the exhaustion requirement and review the claim if the 15 applicant “asserts colorable constitutional claims.” Subia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 264 F.3d 16 899, 902 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Global Rescue Jets v. Kaiser Found. Health, 30 F.4th 17 905 (9th Cir. 2022). A colorable claim “must have both legal and factual support.” Myers 18 v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 813 F.2d 957, 960 (9th Cir. 1987). The mere allegation of a 19 constitutional violation is “not sufficient to raise a ‘colorable’ constitutional claim.” Hoye 20 v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 990, 992 (9th Cir. 1992). Rather, a plaintiff must allege “facts 21 sufficient to state a violation.” Anderson v. Babbitt, 230 F.3d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2000). 22 Here, the Plaintiff filed his claim in this Court before exhausting the four-step 23 process. The Agency has made an initial decision on the Plaintiff’s eligibility, awarding 24 him benefits dating back to May 2023. (Income Decision, 2–3.) The Agency informed the 25 Plaintiff that he may proceed to step two and request a “reconsideration” of this decision. 26 (Id. at 7.) The Plaintiff has not done so. Because the second, third, and fourth steps have 27 not been completed, the Agency has not made a final decision. Without a final decision to 28 review, the Court cannot review the Plaintiff’s claim against the Agency. 1 Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s exhaustion requirement is not waived because he has not 2 presented a colorable constitutional claim. The Plaintiff argues that the “(ADA) Law,” the 3 Americans with Disabilities Act, “defends the rights of disabled people” and that the denial 4 of the supplemental income benefits “causes irreparable harm to the [applicant] and their 5 families.” (Compl., 5.) He also argues that “discriminatory and abusive [Agency] 6 employees continue to refuse to pay . . . the retroactive payment” dating back to November 7 18, 2021. (Id. at 10.) He claims this is “an abuse of power and a serious violation of the 8 constitution.” (Id. at 6.) But these and other statements made in the Complaint are not 9 factual allegations. The statements are mere assertions of misconduct, not allegations of 10 “well-pleaded facts” that state a claim to relief “plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 11 678. The Court does not find that the Plaintiff’s claims raise a colorable constitutional 12 claim. 13 The Plaintiff has not exhausted the review process for the Agency. He has also not 14 alleged a colorable constitutional claim that would allow the Court to waive the exhaustion 15 requirement. Therefore, the Court cannot review the Plaintiff’s case. His claims against 16 the Agency are dismissed without prejudice. 17 The Court conditionally denies the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Because 18 the Plaintiff does not indicate in response to the motion to dismiss that he has some facts 19 to allege that would show a plausible constitutional claim, leave to amend would be futile 20 and just delay his claim for benefits back to November 2021. The best procedure is for the 21 Plaintiff to pursue the administrative claim process. If he loses, he can appeal to this Court. 22 Nonetheless, if the Agency declines to extend the Plaintiff's time to request further review, 23 the Plaintiff will be unable to pursue further remedies with the Agency. In that case, the 24 Court will grant the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The Plaintiff may file a motion 25 to reopen the case and amend his complaint at that time. 26 // 27 // 28 // I IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Agency’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF 3 ||No. 6.) The Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Leave to amend is 4 ||conditionally DENIED, subject to the Agency’s decision to extend the Plaintiff's request 5 || for further review. The Plaintiff's motion for payment of his funds in a single payment is 6 || DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 8.) The Clerk shall enter a final judgment dismissing this 7 || case without prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 27, 2026 j = j 10 Honorable Barry Ted Mosko 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 □ □□