1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE EDWARD HARRIS, No. 2:25-CV-1596-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action for judicial review of a final 19 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under

(g). Pending before the 20 Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See ECF No. 20. Plaintiff has 21 filed an opposition. See ECF Nos. 22, 23, 25, and 26. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion 22 for a default judgment. See ECF No. 19. The parties appeared for a hearing before the 23 undersigned via Zoom on September 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff appeared pro se. Angela 24 Thornton-Millard, Esq., appeared for Defendant. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the matter 25 was submitted. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 In this case, Plaintiff has received social security benefits since December 1999. 2 See ECF No. 20, pg. 2. Between March 2020 and February 2022, Plaintiff’s benefits payments 3 were reduced because Plaintiff received in-kind support. See

On January 27, 2022, the 4 agency informed Plaintiff that his benefits payments were going to be stopped entirely. See

5 Plaintiff requested reconsideration, which the agency initially denied. See

After Plaintiff 6 requested a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge held a hearing and issued a decision favorable 7 to Plaintiff finding that the suspension of benefits payments should be lifted. See

8 On July 25, 2024, the agency informed Plaintiff that his payments were being 9 restored retroactive to March 2022. See

Plaintiff was later informed the following month that 10 Plaintiff was due additional back payments for the time between March 2022 and August 2024. 11 See

12 In October 2024, Plaintiff requested reconsideration of the payment reduction for 13 the March 2020 to February 2022 period.1 See

That request is still pending before the 14 agency, and no final decision has been issued by the Commissioner as to the reduction of 15 payments. See

In the current action, Plaintiff challenges the reduction of payments. See ECF 16 No. 1. 17 Cases arising under the Social Security Act are not ripe for judicial review until 18 there has been a final decision issued by the Commissioner. See Dexter v. Colvin,

(9th Cir. 2013). The regulations define “final decision” as requiring the following 20 process: (1) an initial decision; (2) request for reconsideration of that initial decision if 21 unfavorable; (3) request for and holding of a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge; and 22 (4) request for Appeals Council review of any unfavorable decision issued by the 23 Administrative Law Judge. See

(a). When a claimant has not exhausted 24 this four-step process, judicial review is not available and dismissal is warranted. See Heckler 25 v. Ringer,

(1984). 26 / / / 27 1 At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that the relevant time period is from December 28 2019 through February 2022. 1] /// 2 Dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff has not completed the four-step process 3 || as to the issue challenged in the complaint — reduction of benefits. Specifically, Plaintiffs 4 || request for reconsideration as to this issue is still pending before the agency. Because no final 5 || decision has issued, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal is 6 || without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to seek judicial review following a final decision by the 7 || Commissioner. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 9 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 20, is granted. 10 2. Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, ECF No. 19, is denied as moot. 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed enter judgment and close this file. 12 13 | Dated: September 22, 2025 Ss..c0_, M4 DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28