The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARIAM S. A.,1 Case No. 2:25-CV-05501-AJR
12 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION
v. AND ORDER DISMISSING
13 ACTION FOR LACK OF
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner JURISDICTION
14
of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18 I.
19 INTRODUCTION
20 Mariam S. A. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action seeking judicial review of a final
21 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or
22 “Defendant”) dismissing Plaintiff’s request for an administrative hearing. On
23 September 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Opening Brief. (Dkt. 19.) On November 14,
24 2025, Defendant filed an Opposition Brief. (Dkt. 26.) On November 18, 2025,
25
26 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
27 Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court
Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United
28 States.
1
2 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate
3 Judge. (Dkts. 10, 11, 12.) For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that
4 this action must be DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
5
6 II.
7 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
8 On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance
9 Benefits (“DIB”). (Dkt. 18-1 at 200-06.) The Plaintiff’s claim was denied at the
10 initial-determination stage on December 24, 2022. (Id. at 93.) Plaintiff’s claim was
11 then denied upon reconsideration on January 5, 2023. (Id. at 98.) On May 15, 2023,
12 Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing. (Id. at 105.) On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed
13 a Request to Withdraw a Hearing Request. (Id. at 199.) In response to Plaintiff’s
14 request, Administrative Law Judge Richard Breen (the “ALJ”) issued an Order of
15 Dismissal on August 6, 2024. (Id. at 27.) On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff sent
16 correspondence requesting to set aside the Order of Dismissal as follows:
17 This is to notify you that I have changed my mind and wish to continue my
18 Social Security Disability application. Please set aside the 8/6/24 dismissal of
19 my Request for Hearing.
20 (Id. at 23.)
21 On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent correspondence to the ALJ
22 stating that he was notified telephonically that morning by the ALJ’s assistant that
23 the ALJ had denied Plaintiff’s request to set aside the Order of Dismissal. (Id. at 21-
24 22.) Plaintiff’s counsel requested a written response to Plaintiff’s request to set
25 aside the Order of Dismissal. (Id.) On February 28, 2025, the ALJ sent a letter back
26 to Plaintiff’s counsel stating as follows: Request to reopen dated 10/1/2024 is
27 denied. Matter was knowingly withdrawn and no good grounds to reopen.” (Id. at
28
1
2 that the ALJ committed an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 16-19.)
3 On April 16, 2025, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review
4 as follows:
5 We found no reason under our rules to review the Administrative Law
6 Judge’s dismissal. Therefore, we have denied your request for review.
7
With your request for review, you alleged that “The ALJ abused his discretion
8
by refusing to set aside claimant’s voluntary withdrawal of her request for
9
hearing.” Under our rules described below, we considered your allegations
10
solely as they relate to your case for abuse of discretion. After reviewing the
11
entire record, we determined that the Administrative Law Judge did not abuse
12
his or her discretion and none of the other reasons in our rules existed to
13
review your case. We have completed our action on your request for review.
14
(Id. at 5.) On that date, the ALJ’s dismissal became the final decision of the
15
Commissioner. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h). Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the
16
Commissioner’s final decision.
17
18
III.
19
STANDARD OF REVIEW
20
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a district court may review the Commissioner’s
21
decision to deny benefits once a final decision has been made after a hearing.
22
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec.
23
Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006)); Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d
24
1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.
25
1999)); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Fair v. Bowen,
26
885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989)). The applicable standard of review is abuse of
27
discretion as to the overall conclusion and substantial evidence as to any fact. See
28
1
2 ordinary case, a court should restrict its review to the procedural ground that was the
3 basis for the Appeals Council dismissal and (if necessary) allow the agency to
4 address any residual substantive questions in the first instance.” Smith, 587 U.S. at
5 488.
6
7 IV.
8 DISCUSSION
9 Plaintiff raises a single ground for relief seeking judicial review of the ALJ’s
10 refusal to vacate the Order of Dismissal. (Dkt. 19 at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff
11 contends that the ALJ abused their discretion by refusing to vacate the Order of
12 Dismissal after Plaintiff submitted a letter requesting that the ALJ set aside
13 Plaintiff’s prior Form HA-85 withdrawal of her hearing request. (Id. at 3-5.)
14 Plaintiff contends that Form HA-85 “creates a clear procedural path for a claimant
15 who reconsiders, stating: ‘If you change your mind, you must ask the judge to
16 cancel this request to withdraw within 60 days . . . .’” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff interprets
17 this to mean that Form HA-85 does not “require a complex legal or factual showing”
18 for good cause, but rather simply changing one’s mind is sufficient to show good
19 cause. (Id.) For those reasons, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ “arbitrarily
20 reject[ed]” Plaintiff’s request to vacate the Order of Dismissal. (Id. at 5-6.)
21 Defendant brings contends that the ALJ’s refusal to vacate the dismissal was
22 not appealable to the Appeals Council. (Dkt. 26 at 3-4.) However, Defendant also
23 acknowledges that the Appeals Council nonetheless “considered whether the ALJ’s
24 underlying dismissal was appropriate. (Id. at 4.) Defendant contends that the
25 Appeals Council correctly rejected Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s refusal
26 to vacate the dismissal because the Form HA-85 requires a claimant to “give a good
27 reason why the dismissal was wrong.” (Id. at 5.) Thus, Defendant contends that the
28
1
2 provide good cause. (Id.)
3 A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Review the ALJ’s Refusal to Vacate the
4 Order of Dismissal or the Decision of the Appeals Council to Deny
5 Review.
6 This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing final agency decisions under
7 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides in relevant part:
8 Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social
9 Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of
10 the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a
11 civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of
12 notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner
13 of Social Security may allow.
14 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). To constitute a final agency decision subject to judicial review,
15 a claimant must take all the necessary administrative steps:
16 (1) Initial determination. This is a determination we make about your
17 entitlement or your continuing entitlement to benefits or about any
18 other matter, as discussed in § 404.902, that gives you a right to
19 further review.
20 (2) Reconsideration. If you are dissatisfied with an initial
21 determination, you may ask us to reconsider it.
22 (3) Hearing before an administrative law judge. If you are dissatisfied
23 with the reconsideration determination, you may request a hearing
24 before an administrative law judge.
25 (4) Appeals Council review. If you are satisfied with the decision of the
26 administrative law judge, you may request that the Appeals Council
27 review the decision.
28
1
2 If a claimant has completed the four steps outlined above in the administrative
3 review process, then a final decision has been made that is subject to judicial review.
4 Id. If a claimant is dissatisfied with that final decision, then they “may request
5 judicial review by filing an action in a Federal district court.” Id. However, many
6 administrative actions “are not subject to the administrative review process . . . and
7 . . . are not subject to judicial review.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.903. For example, the
8 denial of request to extend the time period for reviewing review of a determination
9 or decision, the denial of a request to use the expedited appeal process, and the
10 denial of a request to reopen a determination or a decision are not subject to the
11 administrative review process and are not subject to judicial review. See 20 C.F.R. §
12 404.903(j)-(l).
13 Here, Plaintiff’s request to set aside the dismissal of her request for a hearing
14 is effectively the same as a request to reopen a determination or decision within the
15 meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.903(l). (Dkt. 18-1 at 23.) The regulation makes clear
16 that the denial of this request is not subject to the administrative review process and
17 is not subject to judicial review. See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977)
18 (holding that denial of a petition to reopen was not a final agency decision under 42
19 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Thus, the Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s
20 refusal to vacate the Order of Dismissal. See Munson v. Berryhill, 2017 WL
21 3225499, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2017) (“[T]he ALJ’s decision to deny
22 reopening of a prior claim is discretionary and Ms. Munson is not entitled to judicial
23 review of the ALJ’s good cause determination on the merits.”).
24 Indeed, in Miller v. Astrue, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Or. 2011), the U.S.
25 District Court for the District of Oregon held that it “ha[d] no jurisdiction to review
26 the reasons for the Appeals Council’s decision to deny [the plaintiff’s] request to
27 withdraw his appeal or to review the Appeal’s Council’s decision to evaluate the
28
1
2 finding the plaintiff disabled and awarding benefits. Id. at 1127. The plaintiff filed
3 an appeal seeking to amend his onset date. Id. The ALJ then issued an amended
4 decision with the amended onset date sought by the plaintiff and the plaintiff
5 requested to withdraw his appeal. Id. However, the Appeals Council declined to
6 withdraw the appeal and reversed the decision of the ALJ, finding that the plaintiff
7 was not disabled or entitled to benefits. Id. The U.S. District Court for the District
8 of Oregon explained that it only had jurisdiction to review a final decision that
9 complied with the four-step administrative review process and that the decision of
10 the Appeals Council to decline to withdraw the appeal was not “made after a
11 hearing” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Id. at 1131. Therefore, the
12 court concluded that it “ha[d] no jurisdiction to review the reasons for the Appeals
13 Council’s decision to decline to withdraw [the plaintiff’s] appeal and its decision to
14 review the ALJ’s decision.” Id. at 1132.
15 Similarly here, the decision of the Appeals Council to deny Plaintiff’s request
16 for review was not “made after a hearing” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
17 405(g). (Dkt. 18-1 at 5); see Miller, 780 F. Supp. 2d at 1131. Indeed, the Ninth
18 Circuit has explained that judicial review of a final decision made “after a hearing”
19 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) distinguishes between decisions on the merits governed by
20 procedures established in 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) from discretionary decisions not
21 subject to those procedures. See Peterson v. Califano, 631 F.2d 628, 631 (9th Cir.
22 1980) (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary
23 denial of an extension of time to file a complaint in district court). Here, the ALJ’s
24 refusal to vacate the Order of Dismissal was a discretionary decision not subject to
25 the procedures established in 42 U.S.C. § 405(b). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.960(a)
26 (stating that “an administrative law judge or the Appeals Council may vacate a
27 dismissal of a request for a hearing if you request that we vacate the dismissal” and
28
1
2 added)). Thus, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decision
3 of the Appeals Council to deny Plaintiff’s request for review because Plaintiff
4 sought review of a discretionary determination that was not made “after a hearing”
5 within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
6 B. Even if the Court Had Jurisdiction, Which It Does Not, Plaintiff Would
7 Still Fail to Satisfy the Good Cause Standard.
8 Even assuming the Court had jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s decision, which
9 it does not, the Court would still reject Plaintiff’s claim because she has failed to
10 satisfy the good cause standard set forth in the Form HA-85. As set forth above, the
11 Form HA-85 states that “[i]f you change your mind, you must ask the judge to
12 cancel this request to withdraw within 60 days after you get the dismissal notice.”
13 (Dkt. 18-1 at 199.) However, the form also states that “[y]ou must give a good
14 reason why the dismissal was wrong.” (Id.) As also set forth above, the applicable
15 regulations make clear that both administrative law judges and the Appeals Council
16 have discretion to vacate a dismissal of a request for a hearing. See 20 C.F.R. §
17 404.960(a) (stating that “an administrative law judge or the Appeals Council may
18 vacate a dismissal of a request for a hearing if you request that we vacate the
19 dismissal” and “state why our dismissal of your request for a hearing was
20 erroneous” (emphasis added)).
21 The requirement for a “good reason” set forth in the Form HA-85 is
22 analogous to the “good cause” required to reopen a prior determination or claim.
23 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.988(b) (“A determination, revised determination, decision, or
24 revised decision may be reopened . . . [w]ithin four years of the date of the notice of
25 the initial determination if we find good cause, as defined in § 404.989, to reopen
26 the case . . . .”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.989(a) states that “[w]e will find that there is good
27 cause to reopen a determination or decision if—(1) New and material evidence is
28
1 || furnished; (2) A clerical error in the computation or recomputation of benefits was
2 || made; or (3) The evidence that was considered in making the determination or
3 || decision clearly shows on its face that an error was made.” 20 C.F.R. §
4 || 404.989(b) states that “[w]e will not find good cause to reopen your case if the only
5 || reason for reopening is a change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon
6 || which the determination or decision was made.”
7 Here, Plaintiff requested to cancel her request for withdrawal of a hearing by
8 || stating as follows:
9 This is to notify you that I have changed my mind and wish to continue my
10 Social Security Disability application. Please set aside the 8/6/24 dismissal of
11 my Request for Hearing.
12 || (Dkt. 18-1 at 23.) Thus, Plaintiff provided no reason other than that she changed
13 || her mind. (Id.) This clearly does not qualify as “good cause” within the meaning of
14 || 20 C.F.R. § 404.989(a). The Court also concludes that the ALJ did not abuse their
15 || discretion in concluding that Plaintiff had failed to provide a good reason as
16 || required by the Form HA-85. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.960(a). Accordingly, the Court
17 || would deny Plaintiff's claim on the merits, even if it had jurisdiction, which it does
18 || not.
19
20 V.
21 CONCLUSION
22 Consistent with the foregoing, the Court concludes that this action must be
23 || DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The Clerk of the Court shall serve
24 || copies of this Order and the Judgment on counsel for both parties.
25
26 || DATED: July 15, 2026 \oe LL.
17 HQN. A. JOEL RICHLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28