9th Circuit upholds dismissal of Social Security mandamus petition as moot after the SSA held…
Jameson v. Bisignano
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of Social Security mandamus petition as moot after the SSA held the requested hearing, and bars merits review because the claimant never appealed to the Appeals Council.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Barry Jameson's petition, which had asked a court to order the Social Security Administration to give him a hearing. Because the SSA actually held that hearing while the case was pending, the court found the petition moot and there was nothing left to decide. The court also refused to review the outcome of that hearing because Jameson never appealed the Administrative Law Judge's decision to the SSA Appeals Council, meaning he had not exhausted the required administrative steps before going to federal court.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Social Security benefits claimants who seek federal court review of agency decisions. It reinforces that claimants must complete all SSA administrative steps, including appealing to the Appeals Council, before a federal court can hear their case.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Barry Simon Jameson filed a petition in federal court asking the court to order the Social Security Administration to hold an administrative hearing on his benefits claim. This type of petition, called a writ of administrative mandamus, is a request for a court to compel a government agency to do something it is legally required to do. While the case was pending, the SSA did hold a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in January 2024, and the judge issued an unfavorable decision in February 2024. Jameson had previously told defense counsel that he would agree to dismiss his petition as moot if the hearing was finally held. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that once the hearing took place, the original dispute was eliminated and the court could no longer provide any meaningful relief on that question. A federal court can only hear live controversies, and this one had ended. Jameson then argued that the court should go further and review whether the ALJ's February 2024 decision was correct on the merits. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument because Jameson had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Under federal law, a Social Security claimant must receive a final decision from the Commissioner, which requires completing the full administrative review process, including appealing to the SSA's Appeals Council if they disagree with an ALJ ruling. Jameson was notified he could appeal to the Appeals Council but did not do so. Because he skipped that step, no federal court had jurisdiction to review the ALJ's decision in this case. The court also noted briefly that Jameson raised a separate issue about the SSA failing to address his request to waive repayment of an overpayment, but the court observed that Jameson had not filed the required waiver form with the SSA until after the 2024 hearing, so that issue was not properly before the ALJ at the time of the hearing. There was no dissent. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously to affirm the dismissal.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARRY SIMON JAMESON, No. 25-338 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-01305-SCR v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Sean C. Riordan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Barry Simon Jameson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as moot his petition for a writ of administrative mandamus seeking a hearing before the Social Security Administration (SSA). “We review a district * 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). court’s determination of mootness de novo.” Arnold v. United States, 816 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1987). We likewise review de novo whether administrative remedies have been properly exhausted. Haw. Disability Rights Ctr. v. Kishimoto, 122 F.4th 353, 363 (9th Cir. 2024). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. 1. The district court correctly dismissed Jameson’s petition for a writ of administrative mandamus as moot. A case is moot when events occurring after a complaint is filed eliminate the live controversy between the parties, such that the court can no longer provide any effective relief to the plaintiff. See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Nw. Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal cases require that “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975) (citation omitted). Here, the only live controversy was eliminated because the SSA held Jameson’s requested hearing while his petition was pending. Jameson filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus asking the court to “direct the Social Security Administration (SSA) to perform their administrative duties and allow Jameson to have a hearing.” Jameson told defense counsel that “if a hearing was finally held while the petition was pending, [he] would of course agree to dismiss 2 25-338 [his] petition as moot.” While the petition was pending, the SSA held a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in January 2024, and the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision in February 2024. Thus, the action was moot. 2. Contrary to Jameson’s contention, no more live controversies remain. Jameson seeks judicial review of the merits of the February 2024 ALJ decision, but he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.1 A claimant must obtain a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing” before seeking judicial review. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A decision is only final once a claimant has completely exhausted administrative remedies. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1400(a)(5); see also Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A final decision has two elements: (1) presentment of the claim to the Commissioner, and (2) complete exhaustion of administrative remedies.”). If a claimant has not exhausted the administrative review process, the complaint must be dismissed. Bass v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A claimant’s failure to exhaust the procedures set forth in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), deprives the district court of jurisdiction.”). Jameson cannot seek review of the 2024 ALJ decision in this action because 1 Jameson also argues that the ALJ improperly failed to address his request to waive recoupment of overpayment. The issue of the waiver was not before the ALJ at the 2024 hearing because Jameson did not file the proper waiver form with the SSA until afterwards. 3 25-338 he did not exhaust administrative remedies. Jameson was notified that if he disagreed with the 2024 ALJ decision he could file an appeal with the Appeals Council. He was also informed that if he did not appeal to the Appeals Council, and the Appeals Council did not review the ALJ decision on its own, he would lose his right to a federal court review. Jameson did not appeal the ALJ decision to the Appeals Council, so he did not exhaust the administrative review process. AFFIRMED. 4 25-338
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.