Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenged the dismissal of his action against the Social Security Administration regarding the discontinuation of his benefits from 1980 to 1985. The primary legal issue was whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, which the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal on the grounds that the appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 405(g), which mandates appealing benefit changes within 60 days of notice. Additionally, the appellant did not present a colorable constitutional claim, as required to establish jurisdiction. The court found other arguments unpersuasive and highlighted that this decision is not for publication and does not set a precedent under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellant's procedural deficiencies precluded judicial review, leading to the affirmation of the dismissal of his action.
Legal Issues Addressed
Colorable Constitutional Claim Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's failure to present a non-frivolous constitutional claim precluded jurisdiction.
Reasoning: Furthermore, Goff did not present a colorable constitutional claim, as established by Subía v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., which states that such claims must not be frivolous or made solely to establish jurisdiction.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies under 42 U.S.C. 405(g)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies as required under the statute barred judicial review.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's dismissal, concluding that Goff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in a timely manner, as required by 42 U.S.C. 405(g).
Final Decision Requirement for Judicial Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judicial review is restricted to the Secretary's 'final decision' following a hearing, which the appellant did not obtain.
Reasoning: This statute restricts judicial review to the Secretary's 'final decision' made after a hearing, and regulations (20 C.F.R. 416.1336(b)) mandate that claimants must appeal any notice of benefit suspension, reduction, or termination within 60 days of receipt.
Precedential Value of Court Decisions under 9th Cir. R. 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision was affirmed with a note that it is not suitable for publication and does not set a precedent.
Reasoning: The court affirms the dismissal, noting that this decision is not suitable for publication and does not set a precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.