Auston v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE SHAVANTE AUSTON o/b/o B.K.J., 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-0354-KKE 10 v. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 12 Defendant.

Plaintiff filed this action without attorney representation, on behalf of a minor seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of an application for Supplemental Security Income. Dkt.

No. 4. In lieu of an answer, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss because Plaintiff did not complete the required steps of administrative review, and instead directly filed this civil action approximately two years after the application was denied. See Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Commissioner’s motion.

To exhaust administrative remedies, a claimant must complete a four-step administrative review process that involves: (1) an initial determination; (2) reconsideration; (3) a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”); and (4) requesting Appeals Council review of the ALJ’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a). After a claimant has completed these steps, the claimant “may request judicial review by filing an action in a Federal district court.” Id. § 416.1400(a)(5).

1 The Commissioner has submitted unrebutted evidence that Plaintiff did not complete at least the third or fourth steps of administrative review: requesting a hearing before an ALJ, and requesting Appeals Council review of an unfavorable ALJ’s decision issued after a hearing. Dkt. No. 10-1.

4 The Commissioner does not explicitly indicate whether Plaintiff completed the second step. Id. 5 Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives this Court of jurisdiction.

6 The Social Security Act authorizes judicial review of a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This remedy is exclusive and must be strictly construed. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (“No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided.”); Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (“[A] waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.”). A court must dismiss a complaint when a claimant has not exhausted the administrative appeals needed to obtain a final decision. See, e.g., Metko v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 362 F. App’x 870, 871 (9th Cir. 2010).

14 Because the undisputed record before the Court indicates that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the Commissioner’s decision is not subject to judicial review. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to resolve this administrative appeal, and therefore GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 10.

18 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2025.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 21 United States District Judge