NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLLEEN MARIE COURTNEY, No. 19-15995
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01244-LJO-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2020**
Before: D.W. NELSON, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Colleen Marie Courtney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging that the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
improperly adjusted her Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits to recoup
alleged overpayments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dexter
v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013). We vacate and remand.
The district court dismissed Courtney’s action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because it concluded that Courtney failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. However, the district court treated Courtney’s action as a challenge to
the denial of SSI benefits rather than one alleging unauthorized recovery of
overpayments. Under 42 U.S.C. § 404, the SSA is prohibited from recovering
overpayments made to a beneficiary until the SSA makes a pre-recoupment
decision on the beneficiary’s written reconsideration request and after an oral
hearing on a request to waive recoupment. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S.
682, 693-94 (1979). Moreover, if the SSA recovers an overpayment without
rendering a decision on a claimant’s preliminary request to waive recoupment, the
jurisdictional requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) are met and an action in federal
court can proceed. See id. at 706. The district court did not consider whether it
could exercise subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the SSA recovered
overpayments without rendering a decision on Courtney’s pre-recoupment requests
for reconsideration and for a hearing, and the record is not sufficiently developed
on these matters. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district
court to consider in the first instance whether to exercise subject matter jurisdiction
over Courtney’s claim for unauthorized recovery of overpayments.
2 19-15995
In light of our disposition, the district court should reconsider its denial of
Courtney’s requests for discovery into the SSA’s records of her correspondence
with the agency.
Courtney’s requests for clarification of this court’s prior orders are denied as
moot.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 19-15995