Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Claimant brought action for review of denial, by the Commissioner of Social Security (SSA), of his request to reopen his claim for disability benefits. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge, granted summary judgment for SSA, and claimant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that district court lacked jurisdiction to review SSA's decision not to reopen application.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
Both parties consented in writing to proceed before a magistrate judge.
Before RYMER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Bill Free appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") in Free's action, which sought review of the denial of his request to reopen a claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's determination that it lacks subject
Page 477.
matter jurisdiction, Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision not to reopen Free's 1978 application. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-08, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (concluding that because a petition to reopen a final decision may be denied without a hearing, it is not a final decision made after a hearing); see also Davis v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 934, 935-36 (9th Cir.1982) (concluding that the Commissioner's refusal to reopen and determination that a claim is barred by res judicata are not reviewable).
Free's contention that the district court had jurisdiction over his action because the administrative law judge implicitly reopened his prior applications is without merit. See Krumpelman v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 586, 588-89 (9th Cir.1985) (stating that the Commissioner's consideration of res judicata is not a reopening of the prior claim).
To the extent Free challenges the Commissioner's award of benefits retroactive only to July 1992, his contention lacks merit. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.621(a)(1); Rolen v. Barnhart, 273 F.3d 1189, 1191 (9th Cir.2001) (stating retroactive benefits limited to the twelve months prior to the filing of an application for benefits), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 818, 123 S.Ct. 93, 154 L.Ed.2d 24 (2002).
AFFIRMED.