1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARY ANN CELEDON, Case No. 1:21-cv-00477-CDB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 10 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,1 (Doc. 1) 12 Defendant. 14-Day Deadline 13 14 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff Mary Ann Celedon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint pursuant 17 to

(g) and

(c)(3) seeking review of the decision of the 18 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application for 19 benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleged the “Notice of Appeals Council 20 dated February 14, 2021 gave plaintiff an additional 30 days, plus five (5) days for delivery by 21 mail, to file a Civil Action,” such that her complaint was timely. (Id. at 1-2). 22 On February 14, 2022, the Commissioner lodged the Administrative Record (“AR”) and 23 an accompanying certification that it was a “full and accurate transcript of the entire record of 24 proceedings relating to this case.” (Docs. 12, 12-1). However, on July 12, 2022, the 25 1 On January 21, 2025, Michelle King was named Acting Commissioner of the Social 26 Security Administration. See https://www.ssa.gov/agency.commissioner/ (last visited January 23, 2025). She therefore is substituted as the Defendant in this action. See

(g) 27 (referring to the “Commissioner’s Answer”);

(d) (“the person holding the Office of the Commissioner shall, in [their] official capacity, be the proper defendant.”). 1 Commissioner lodged a supplement and certification indicating that certain exhibits were omitted 2 in the initial filing. (Docs. 20, 20-1). After submission of the supplement, the parties submitted 3 their briefs (Docs. 22, 25).2 In her brief, Plaintiff asserts that the “Appeals Council denied 4 Plaintiff’s request for review.” (Doc. 22 at 2). However, Plaintiff fails to cite any portion of the 5 record in support of this assertion. (Id.). 6 The Court’s review of the record reveals only a single communication from the Appeals 7 Council relevant to the ALJ decision at issue. In an April 13, 2021 letter to Plaintiff’s 8 representative, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for more time to file a civil action, 9 explaining: Under our rules, we may extend the time to file a civil action if you 10 have a good reason for filing late.

11 You stated that you could not file on time because you are in the process of securing an attorney for the claimant’s appeal in federal 12 court. However, you did not appeal the unfavorable February 6, 2020 decision to the Appeals Council. Therefore, you do not have 13 appeal rights to federal court and we have denied your request for more time. 14 15 (AR 5199). 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 Federal courts have “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 18 jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 19

(2006). “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the 20 court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”

. 21 The Social Security Act Provides that “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the 22 Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, … may obtain 23 review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days.”

(g). 24 Whether a decision is final for purposes of § 405(g) is governed by the Social Security 25 Administration’s regulations. Sims v. Apfel,

. The regulations set out a four- 26 step administrative review process: 1) initial determination; 2) reconsideration; 3) hearing before

27 2 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all proceedings in this action, in accordance with

(c)(1). (Doc. 11). 1 | an ALJ; and 4) Appeals Council review.

(a). The Commissioner’s decision 2 | is final when a claimant has “completed the steps of the administrative review process.” 20 3 | CFR. § 414.1400(a)(5). However, “[i]f a claimant fails to request review from the Council, 4 | there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases.” Sims,

| 107. 6 Here, there is no evidence in the record to support that Plaintiff sought review by the 7 | Appeals Council. As discussed, the only communication from the Appeals Council relevant to 8 | the ALJ decision at issue explicitly stated Plaintiff did not seek the Council’s review. (AR 5199). 9 | Under Sims, this failure deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims. 10 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 Accordingly, within 14 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show 12 | cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 And it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the date of this order, the 14 | Commissioner SHALL certify that the record before the Court is complete, specifically with 15 || respect to any decision or communications from the Appeals Council in this matter. 16 | IT IS □□ ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ January 27, 2025 | Ww Vv KD 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28