Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mike YELLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Mike Yellen appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action challenging the constitutionality of the earnings requirement of Title II of the Social Security Act, which requires individuals to have worked and paid Social Security taxes for a certain number of years in order to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Yellen alleges that he was unable to meet the earnings requirement because he was incarcerated. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013). Yellen did not exhaust his administrative remedies, which is a requirement when filing a suit challenging the denial of an application for DIB. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Dexter, 731 F.3d at 980. The district court properly concluded that Yellen did not meet the exception to the exhaustion requirement because he did not raise a colorable constitutional claim that the earnings requirement violates equal protection by treating him less favorably than an equally disabled claimant who was not imprisoned and thus able to earn a qualifying income. See Hoye v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 990, 991 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (judicial review without exhaustion of administrative remedies is available if the claimant shows that his constitutional claim is (1) collateral to his benefits claim, (2) colorable, and (3) “one whose resolution would not serve the purposes of exhaustion”) (internal citations omitted). As we held in Harvell v. Chater, 87 F.3d 371, 373 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), the earnings requirement comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it is rationally based and free from invidious discrimination.
The district court also properly dismissed Yellen's claim of disability discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because such a claim may not be brought to recover on a claim for DIB. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-16646
Decided: September 10, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)