9th Circuit upholds dismissal of Charlie Whitney's Social Security lawsuit, ruling his challenge to a…
Whitney 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 Charlie Whitney's Social Security lawsuit, ruling his challenge to a 2017 decision was filed years too late and his emotional distress claim is barred by federal law.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Charlie James Whitney's complaint against the Social Security Commissioner. Whitney had tried to challenge a 2017 Administrative Law Judge decision about disability benefits, but federal law required him to file in court within roughly 125 days of that decision, and he waited until 2024. The court also ruled that his emotional distress claim could not be brought in federal court because a specific federal statute blocks such lawsuits against the Social Security Commissioner.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects people who want to challenge Social Security disability decisions in federal court, reminding them that strict filing deadlines apply and that claims for emotional distress against the Social Security Commissioner are blocked by federal law.
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Unpublished opinion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Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Charlie James Whitney, representing himself, sued the Commissioner of Social Security in federal court in 2024. He sought to challenge a 2017 Administrative Law Judge decision that had apparently denied or limited his disability benefits, and he also sought damages for emotional distress caused by years of unpaid back pay. On the first question, the court explained that federal law gives claimants only sixty days after receiving notice of a final Social Security decision to file suit in federal court. Because Whitney's 2017 decision had been remanded by a federal court, the rules gave him a combined window of about 125 days to seek review. That window closed long before he filed this lawsuit in 2024, making his challenge time-barred. Whitney argued he should be allowed to proceed anyway under a legal doctrine called equitable tolling, which can extend deadlines when a person was diligently pursuing their rights but faced extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing. The court rejected this argument because Whitney's complaint did not allege that he had tried to appeal in the years between 2017 and 2024, or that anything had stopped him from doing so. Whitney claimed in his appeal brief that he had tried to appeal, but Social Security records showed no such attempt. On the emotional distress claim, the court ruled it was blocked by a federal statute (42 U.S.C. Section 405(h)) that bars lawsuits against the Social Security Commissioner brought under general federal jurisdiction statutes when the claims arise from the disability benefits law. Because Whitney's distress claim grew directly out of his dispute over unpaid disability benefits, it fell squarely within that bar. The panel was unanimous, and there was no dissent.
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 CHARLIE JAMES WHITNEY, No. 24-6216 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:24-cv-03054-MKD v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Charlie James Whitney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA). “We review de novo the district court’s order granting a * 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). motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. 1. The district court properly determined that Whitney’s request for review of the 2017 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision was time-barred. A request for review of a final decision by the Commissioner must be filed in federal court within sixty days after receiving notice. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In cases remanded by a federal court, ALJ decisions become final after sixty days unless the Appeals Council assumes jurisdiction. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484(c)–(d). The Commissioner presumes the claimant receives notice of the decision five days after the date on the notice. Id. § 416.1401. Together, these provisions yielded a 125-day window for Whitney to seek review, which expired long before he filed this action in 2024. The district court also properly determined that Whitney was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 480 (1986) (holding that equitable tolling applies to § 405(g)’s sixty-day requirement). A claimant seeking equitable tolling must establish that they were “pursuing [their] rights diligently” and that “some extraordinary circumstances stood in [their] way.” Redlin v. United States, 921 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). In his complaint, Whitney alleged neither that he sought review in the intervening years, nor that circumstances had prevented him from doing so. In his opening 2 24-6216 brief, he claims that he tried to appeal, but SSA records do not show any such attempt.1 2. The district court also properly determined that Whitney’s emotional distress claim was barred by statute. “No action against . . . the Commissioner of Social Security . . . shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter,” which governs entitlement to disability benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(h); see also Hooker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 858 F.2d 525, 529–30 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that a state tort law claim arising out of termination of Social Security benefits was barred by § 405(h)). Whitney’s emotional distress claim against the Commissioner stems from “all the many years of unpaid back pay.” It thus arises under § 405(h)’s subchapter and cannot be brought against the Commissioner. AFFIRMED.2 1 In his brief, Whitney also states that his doctor is writing a letter detailing his ongoing disability to show that the 2017 ALJ decision was incorrect. This letter has no bearing because, among other things, it was not presented to the district court. See Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that parties may not “supplement the record on appeal with evidence not reviewed by the court below” (citation omitted)). 2 Whitney’s motions for appointment of counsel (Dkt. Nos. 14, 23) are denied. 3 24-6216
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.