Osterloh v. Colvin
ORDER denying 10 Government's Motion to Dismiss. The Government shall file the answer within 60 days of the date of this Order. Once the Government files the answer, all other deadlines shall follow the 4 Scheduling Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 1/30/17.(DXD)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Gregory F Osterloh,
Pending before the Court is the Government’s motion to dismiss this case because
Plaintiff did not timely file a notice of appeal. Doc. 10. Specifically, the Government
argues that Plaintiff’s appeal is 7 days late. Doc. 10 at 2. Plaintiff concedes that his
appeal is untimely, but asks the Court to allow it anyway. The Government did not reply
to Plaintiff’s response.
In its motion, the Government notes that late notices of appeal are subject to
equitable tolling. Specifically,
If the Commissioner does not waive the statute of limitations, a federal
court may equitably toll the limitations period “where the equities in favor
of tolling the limitations period are so great that deference to the agency’s
judgment is inappropriate.” Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 480
(1986) (citation omitted). Equitable tolling of this statute of limitations
should not apply unless there is wrongful conduct by a defendant or
circumstances beyond a claimant’s control that make it impossible to timely
file. Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999).
Doc. 10 at 4.
In his response to the Government’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff claims he counted
business days, not calendar days, and that is why his appeal is late. Doc. 11. Such a
mistake does not meet the test to qualify for equitable tolling.
Plaintiff also filed a supplemental response in which he claims he has mental
problems. Doc. 12. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges, “I suffer from Schizophrenia which
affects my daily life and there are time[s] which escape me and times that are lost.” Doc.
Generally, unsubstantiated claims of mental impairment do not qualify for
equitable tolling. However, with its motion to dismiss, the Government attached a copy
of the ALJ’s decision in this case. In that decision, the ALJ recounts that Plaintiff has
some history of mental illness although the ALJ concludes that such condition is not
disabling. Doc. 10-1 at 14. Because there is some basis in the record to support
Plaintiff’s claim of psychiatric treatment, the Court will liberally construe “circumstances
beyond claimant’s control” and grant equitable tolling.
IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government shall file the answer within
60 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that once the Government files the answer, all
other deadlines shall follow the scheduling order (Doc. 4).
Dated this 30th day of January, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?