Opinion
Civil No. 08-1377 (JAF).
June 2, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
Claimant, Hiram Asencio-Alemán, brings this petition under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the decision by Respondent, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), against reopening Claimant's application for benefits. Docket No. 2. The Commissioner moves to dismiss, Docket No. 10; the motion is unopposed.
We derive the following facts from the parties' submissions.Docket Nos. 2, 10, 11. On January 31, 2001, Claimant applied for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), claiming that he has been disabled since March 15, 1997. The Commissioner denied the application and denied Claimant's motion for reconsideration. On April 25, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that Claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. On August 13, 2002, the Appeals Council declined review of the ALJ's decision, which became a final agency decision by the Commissioner. Claimant did not appeal this decision.
On February 5, 2004, Claimant filed a second application for DIB, alleging that he has suffered disability since March 17, 1997. The Commissioner again denied this request and declined to reconsider his decision. On July 27, 2006, an ALJ found that this second application involved the same issues as the previous one, and that Claimant proffered no new evidence of his disability.Docket No. 11-5. The ALJ treated Claimant's second application as an effort to reopen his prior claim, and concluded that res judicata applied to bar the second application and that no grounds existed to warrant reopening the prior case. Id. On January 30, 2008, the Appeals Council declined review of this second decision, which became the Commissioner's final decision.
On March 31, 2008, Claimant petitioned this court to review the Commissioner's second decision, alleging new evidence. Docket No. 2. On August 20, 2008, the Commissioner moved to dismiss on the basis of res judicata. Docket No. 10. Claimant has not opposed this motion.
"Neither the Social Security Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes judicial review of a final decision of [the Commissioner] not to reopen a claim of benefits." Colón v. Sec'y of Health Human Servs., 877 F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). The sole exception to this rule is where a claimant alleges a constitutional deprivation. Id.
Claimant seeks our review of "the entire administrative record and the new medical evidence submitted," Docket No. 2, which would require us to second-guess the ALJ's decision against reopening Claimant's case, see Docket No. 11-5. Claimant alleges no constitutional violation. See Docket No. 2. We, therefore, lack subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain this petition. See Colón, 877 F.2d at 152.
Accordingly, we hereby GRANT the Commissioner's motion to dismiss, Docket No. 10, and DISMISS Claimant's petition, Docket No. 2, WITH PREJUDICE. We hereby DENY AS MOOT Claimant's motion to strike and for default, Docket No. 21.