Tracy J. Brown v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER AFFIRMING AGENCY DECISION AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Josephine L. Staton. (See Order for details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (vm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

TRACY BROWN,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16
17

Case No. ED CV 17-1300 JLS (MRW)
ORDER AFFIRMING AGENCY
DECISION AND DISMISSING
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22
23

The Court summarily affirms the decision of the Social Security
Administration and dismisses the action with prejudice. Plaintiff has not
advanced any colorable argument in this Court regarding her appeal of the
agency’s action.

24
25
26
27
28

***
1.

This is an appeal from the denial of Social Security disability

benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits based on several back, neck, and painrelated conditions.

1

2.

The agency initially denied her application. After that, an

2

administrative law judge conducted a hearing. Plaintiff was represented by an

3

attorney at the hearing and testified on her own behalf. (Docket # 14-3 at 26.)

4

The ALJ also received medical evidence from Plaintiff’s physicians.

5

3.

The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. According to

6

the written decision, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the physical ability to

7

perform “light work” with various limitations. (Id. at 14.) A vocational expert

8

testified that Plaintiff could perform her previous work as a clerk or hairstylist.

9

(Id. at 20.) The agency’s Appeals Council accepted the ALJ’s decision.

10

4.

Plaintiff commenced this pro se appeal. (Docket # 1.) Magistrate

11

Judge Wilner issued an order explaining the procedure by which the Court

12

would consider a self-represented litigant’s appeal of the agency decision.

13

(Docket # 8.) That order required Plaintiff to identify her “legal claims on

14

appeal” to the government and file a brief with the Court “regarding the issues

15

on appeal.” (Id.)

16

5.

Plaintiff failed to do so. She initially filed a two-page statement

17

that essentially asked the Court to award her benefits for humanitarian reasons.

18

(Docket # 19.) However, the bare submission identified no legal or factual basis

19

upon which the Court could properly vacate the agency’s decision regarding her

20

disability.

21

6.

Judge Wilner issued an order noting this defect. (Docket # 21.)

22

The magistrate judge offered Plaintiff the opportunity to submit a legitimate

23

summary judgment presentation. The order also provided Plaintiff with

24

information about the pro se law clinics that operate in the federal courthouses to

25

assist unrepresented litigants. (Id.)

26
27

7.

Plaintiff filed another short submission. (Docket # 23.) Plaintiff

requested “reconsideration” of her claim based on her generalized claim that she

28
2

1

is unable to work due to her conditions. However, she again identified no

2

specific basis for her appeal of the agency decision.

3

8.

The government contends that Plaintiff’s submissions are

4

inadequate to inform it of the issues on appeal. On that basis, the government

5

asked the Court to affirm the agency’s decision and dismiss the action. (Docket

6

# 25, 27.)

7
8

***
9.

Under 42 U.S.C § 405(g), a district court may review the Social

9

Security Administration’s decision to deny benefits. The ALJ’s findings and

10

decision must be upheld unless “the ALJ’s findings are based on legal error or

11

are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Attmore v. Colvin, 827

12

F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016); Lamear v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 1201, 1204 (9th

13

Cir. 2017).

14

10.

A claimant seeking appellate review of an agency determination

15

bears the burden of identifying “specific assignments of error” with the denial of

16

benefits. Loewen v. Berryhill, 707 F. App’x 907, 908 (9th Cir. 2017). A federal

17

court “need not address arguments that were not argued with any specificity” on

18

appeal from the agency. Id. (citing Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,

19

533 F.3d 1155, 1161 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008); Indep. Towers of Wash. v.

20

Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal court “cannot

21

manufacture arguments for appellant” and will only review issues “which are

22

argued specifically and distinctly” on appeal).

23

11.

Plaintiff had several opportunities to inform the Court and the

24

government of the specific basis for her appeal. Despite time extensions and a

25

referral to a local legal clinic, she has not done so. As a result, the Court cannot

26

determine what issues warrant appellate review. Loewen, 707 F. App’x at 908;

27

Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161. Her general dissatisfaction with the denial of

28
3

1

disability benefits does not provide a legitimate basis to conclude that there was

2

any legal or factual error in her case. Attmore, 827 F.3d at 875; Lamear, 865

3

F.3d at 1204. Judgment must be entered affirming the agency’s adverse

4

decision.1

5
6

***
Therefore, the agency’s decision is AFFIRMED and the present action is

7

DISMISSED with prejudice.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated: June 5, 2018

12

________________________________
HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14

Presented by:

15
16
17
18
19

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The government also contends that dismissal is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 because of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the
action. (Docket # 27 at 3-4.) It is not apparent that Plaintiff failed to prosecute
the case; she just hasn’t prosecuted it well. A Rule 41 dismissal serves as a form
of sanction against a litigant whose conduct delays proceedings or prejudices an
adversary. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). That’s
not directly at play in the current case. As a result, the Court declines to dismiss
the action on this procedural ground.

28
4