Roland v. Bisignano

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Nov 21, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 ALAN ROLAND, No. 2:25-CV-00235-RHW 8 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 9 vs. DISMISS; DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE AND CLOSING FILE 10 SOCIAL SECURITY 11 ADMINISTRATION, ECF No. 4 12 Defendant. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 13 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 4. Plaintiff is 14 proceeding pro se and filed a response. ECF No. 6. The Court has reviewed the 15 briefing and the record herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed 16 below, Defendant’s motion is granted. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against the Social Security 19 Administration, claiming his health insurance coverage under Medicare should have 20 been reinstated on January 16, 2024. ECF No. 1 at 4. The Complaint asks the Court 1 to order Defendant to reinstate his Medicare coverage and provide “all of [his] 2 records for the last ten years.” ECF No. 1 at 5. He further requests the Court award 3 him damages to refund payments made to Defendant since June 2022 and his court 4 costs. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. 5 Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 12(b)(6) because it “does not explain the legal nature of Plaintiff’s claims, 7 does not contain sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, does not allege that 8 Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, and does not establish Plaintiff lacks 9 adequate remedies aside from judicial relief.” ECF No. 4 at 6-7. Attached to the 10 motion is the declaration of Tsing-Yang Chow, an Operations Analyst providing 11 support for the Medicare program, stating Plaintiff’s Medicare coverage was 12 reinstated effective August 2025 according to a Social Security Administration 13 notice dated August 30, 2025. ECF No. 5 at 2. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 15 A. Rule 12(b)(1) 16 Subject matter jurisdiction defines the bounds of a federal court's adjudicatory 17 authority. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 536, 541 (1986) 18 (“Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that 19 is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress 20 pursuant thereto.”). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is proper when the district court lacks the 2 “statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 3 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2015). 4 Relatedly, even if there is subject matter jurisdiction at the time suit was filed, 5 a court may nevertheless lose that jurisdiction if the controversy before it becomes 6 moot. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997) 7 (observing that “[t]o qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, ‘an actual 8 controversy must be extant at all stages of review.”). A case is moot when “interim 9 relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of an alleged 10 violation of law and there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will 11 recur[.]” Wong v. Dep’t. of State, 789 F.2d 1380, 1384 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal of 12 a case under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper when a case becomes moot. A court may 13 consider evidence outside the pleadings in deciding a 12(b)(1) motion involving a 14 factual attack on jurisdiction. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 B. Rule 12(b)(6) 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss 17 a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a 18 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a 19 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 20 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that 1 “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 2 misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). 3 This standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but there must be “more than 4 a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. While courts do not 5 require “heightened fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient 6 to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 7 570. 8 In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be 9 granted, the court accepts the plaintiff's allegations as true and draws all reasonable 10 inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 11 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court is not required to accept as true “allegations 12 that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 13 inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). 14 C. Pro Se Litigant 15 “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se 16 complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than 17 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’ ” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 18 (citations omitted). A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend the complaint, 19 and some notice of its deficiencies, “unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies 20 of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 Defendant’s motion seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 12(b)(6), although it also argues the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, 5 an argument appropriately addressed under Rule 12(b)(1). The Court addresses 6 jurisdiction first because if the Court lacks jurisdiction, it has no power to evaluate 7 the merits of Plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). 8 A. Claims for Medicare Coverage and Reimbursement of Contributions to Medicare 9 The Complaint asks the Court to order Defendant to reinstate medical 10 insurance coverage under Medicare as of January 16, 2024, and reimburse him 11 $7,200 he has paid to the agency since June of 2022. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. However, 12 after the filing of the Complaint, Defendant issued a notice dated August 30, 2025, 13 declaring Plaintiff entitled to medical insurance under Medicare beginning August 14 2025. ECF No. 5 at 4. 15 Plaintiff’s response acknowledges receipt of this information and apologizes 16 for the lawsuit. ECF No. 6 at 1. Plaintiff states he is a military veteran over the age 17 of 65, who has paid into the Social Security system for 45 years and suffers from a 18 bad back. ECF No. 1 at 4-5; ECF No. 6 at 1-2. He filed this case on July 1, 2025 to 19 “get their attention” because Defendant failed to reinstate his health insurance 20 coverage despite payment of premiums and repeated contacts with the agency since 1 January 2024 resulting only in frustration. See ECF No. 6 at 1 (explaining he tried 2 calling, sending a letter, and visiting Defendant’s office in Bend, Oregon three 3 times). Id. Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant dated September 24, 2024, 4 stating Defendant had unsuccessfully tried to reach him and the local office in Bend, 5 Oregon could assist him with his Medicare enrollment. ECF No. 6-1 at 1. 6 Nevertheless, reinstatement did not occur until August 30, 2025. 7 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, district courts have “original jurisdiction of any 8 action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United 9 States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Mandamus is 10 an extraordinary remedy, issued only when “(1) the plaintiff's claim is ‘clear and 11 certain’; (2) the defendant official’s duty to act is ministerial, and ‘so plainly 12 prescribed as to be free from doubt’; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.” 13 Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Fallini v. Hodel, 783 14 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986)). To issue a writ of mandamus, a party must first 15 exhaust all other avenues of relief. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). 16 Mandamus relief is typically moot when the agency has already completed the 17 necessary action. Here, any claim for mandamus relief is moot with respect to the 18 entitlement to medical insurance under Medicare coverage. In addition, Plaintiff 19 plainly has an adequate remedy with respect to the effective date of coverage as 20 Plaintiff was advised in the agency’s August 30, 2025 notice that he may ask in 1 writing for benefits beginning January 2024. ECF No. 5 at 4. Mandamus relief is 2 also not available in this action because Plaintiff has not exhausted the four levels of 3 administrative review as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 4 which applies to determinations under the Medicare Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff. 5 Plaintiff admits he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. ECF No. 6 at 1 6 (stating he sent one letter to appeal). As such, the Court lacks subject matter 7 jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s claims for Medicare coverage and reimbursement of 8 contributions paid. 9 B. Claim for Records 10 The Complaint also asks the Court to require Defendant release “all” of his 11 “records for the last 10 years.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff’s response states he has 12 asked “many times” for his records and the agency refuses them. ECF No. 6-1 at 4. 13 The Privacy Act “regulate[s] the collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of 14 information by [federal] agencies and provides a private cause of action against 15 federal agencies for violating the Act's provisions.” Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 618 16 (2004) (citation omitted); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(l) (explaining any individual may bring 17 a civil action against the agency for violation of the Act). For actions under the 18 Privacy Act, administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to bringing suit. 19 The Privacy Act authorizes government agencies to promulgate rules 20 regulating the process by which individuals may request records. See 5 U.S.C. § 1 552a(f)(3). Accordingly, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has implemented 2 procedures regarding access to any record about an individual contained in an SSA 3 system of records. See 20 C.F.R. § 401.40. For example, the agency’s regulations 4 require that the individual “specify which systems of records . . . to [be] searched 5 and the records to which [the individual] wish[es] to have access.” 20 C.F.R. § 6 401.40. The regulations provide further that the agency “do[es] not honor requests 7 for all records, all information, or similar blanket requests.” 20 C.F.R. § 401.40. The 8 local Social Security office can assist with requests for information. Id. Plaintiff is 9 required to follow agency regulations pertaining to his request for information as 10 part of his obligation to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to proceeding to 11 district court. 12 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 13 Though the Court can understand Plaintiff’s frustration, Defendant’s action 14 taken after the filing of this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his 15 administrative remedies deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over 16 Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the action must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 17 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the 18 futility of amendment, the Court concludes Plaintiff is not entitled to notice and an 19 opportunity to amend prior to dismissal. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corrs., 66 F.3d 245, 20 1 248 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, Plaintiff claims against Defendant are dismissed with 2 prejudice, without leave to amend and without the award of costs. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 4 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED for the reasons 5 stated herein. Plaintiff’s Complaint and the claims therein are DISMISSED with 6 prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without leave to amend and without 7 the award of costs. 8 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this order, enter judgment in 9 favor of Defendant, provide copies to counsel and mail copies to the pro se Plaintiff, 10 and CLOSE THE FILE. 11 DATED November 21, 2025. 12 s/Robert H. Whaley ROBERT H. WHALEY 13 Senior United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20