Hassan v. Government of the United States,., 2:12-cv-01933

Allen Hassan and John Wolfgram filed a civil rights action in the Eastern District of California alleging ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), and multiple First, Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
Defendants include the federal government, Treasury, DHS, Corelogic Credco, Dignity Health, Medical Board of California, CHP, and state officials; several motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) were filed.
The court granted dismissal with prejudice as to all defendants, finding fatal deficiencies in standing, pleading, and jurisdiction, with one narrow exception regarding potential FCRA/admin remedies for OFAC-related reporting.
Wolfgram, a plaintiff, was found to lack Article III standing to sue for injunctive or relief-type claims related to Hassan’s treatment and alleged downstream effects on Wolfgram.
Most of Hassan’s claims rest on the existence and concealment of secret terrorist blacklists and the OFAC SDN List, and the court found the pleadings failed to plausibly allege a cognizable conspiracy or plausible entitlement to relief.
The court concluded that Hassan must exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Health and Human Services before challenging Medicare reimbursement decisions, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wolfgram has Article III standing to sue	Wolfgram seeks relief as Hassan’s associate; alleges injury from Hassan’s condition and treatment.	Wolfgram lacks a distinct, palpable injury traceable to challenged conduct with redressability.	Wolfgram lacks standing; dismissal granted
Whether the OFAC SDN List/ Corelogic report states a cognizable claim	Corelogic's reporting links Hassan to terrorism; constitutes conspiracy and violation of rights.	SDN List is public; credit reports reflect technical matches; not a covert secret blacklist; claims fail on plausibility.	Claims dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
Whether alleged secret blacklists other than OFAC SDN List support jurisdictional dismissal under substantiality	Secret blacklists caused injuries and constitute constitutional violations.	Allegations are too insubstantial and speculative to warrant federal jurisdiction.	Dismissed under the substantiality doctrine for lack of jurisdiction
Whether Hassan must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking Medicare reimbursement relief	ADA-related relief and monetary recovery from Medicare should be available in district court.	Administrative exhaustion required; court lacks jurisdiction until § 405(g) processes are exhausted.	No relief on Medicare/ADA claims; exhaustion required

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (two-step plausibility framework)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requirements)
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1982) (standing predicated on abstract injury rejected)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (pleading and punitive theory standards)
Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (OFAC/SDN list; FCRA requirements; accuracy in credit reporting)
Hagans v. Levin, 415 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1974) (substantiality doctrine; insubstantial claims lack jurisdiction)
Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985) (substantiality doctrine posture)
Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards; general standards adherence)