Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/12/2017 DENYING 11 Motion to Dismiss. The Commissioner must file the administrative record and an answer or other response on or before 12/1/2017. (Hunt, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL JOSEPH WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-1231 AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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

17
18

This matter is before the court on the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s

19

(“Commissioner”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 11. Upon

20

review of the motion, plaintiff’s opposition (ECF No. 12) and all related documents, the court

21

DENIES the Commissioner’s motion and re-sets the deadlines in this case as explained below.

22
23

I.

Background

On October 7, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge issued a decision denying the

24

plaintiff’s claim for benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. ECF No. 11-2 at 3.

25

Plaintiff requested review of this decision by the Appeals Counsel. Id. In a letter dated March

26

25, 2016, the Appeals Council notified plaintiff and plaintiff’s hearing counsel of its action on the

27

plaintiff’s request for review and of the right to commence a civil action within sixty (60) days

28

from the date of receipt. Id. A postage notation on the letter indicates the letter was mailed on
1

1

March 31, 2016. ECF No. 14-1 at 1. Plaintiff’s hearing counsel testified that the letter was

2

received on April 4, 2016. ECF No. 14 at 2.

3
4
5

II.

The Commissioner moves to dismiss on procedural grounds, arguing that plaintiff did not
file this action within the 60 days allotted by law. ECF No. 11 at 6.

6
7

The Motion

III.

Analysis

Plaintiff’s action is timely. “Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner

8

of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in

9

controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days

10

after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the

11

Commissioner of Social Security may allow.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). The governing statute is

12

clear: there is no reference to the date of the decision; the time to file an action is measured from

13

the date of mailing. Id. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 shows the mailing date was March 31, 2016. ECF

14

No. 14-1 at 1. The Commissioner can allow additional time, and in her motion, the

15

Commissioner contemplates 5 days for mailing. ECF No. 11 at 6. Sixty-five days from March

16

31, 2016 is June 4, 2016. Plaintiff filed this case on June 3, 2016. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s filing

17

of this action was timely, and the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss must be DENIED.

18
19

IV.

Revised Scheduling

On June 6, 2016, this court issued a scheduling order giving the Commissioner 90 days to

20

file the administrative record and an answer or other response. ECF No. 5 at 2. Remaining

21

deadlines in the order were triggered by the filing of these documents. Id. The 90 days passed

22

while the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss was pending. Accordingly, the court hereby re-sets

23

the deadline for the Commissioner to file the administrative record and answer or other response

24

in this case as December 1, 2017. All remaining deadlines will be based on this date, as

25

explained in court’s original scheduling order at ECF No. 5.

26

V.

Conclusion

27

The court hereby orders as follows:

28

1. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss is DENIED; and
2

1

2. The Commissioner must file the administrative record and an answer or other response on

2

or before December 1, 2017.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: October 12, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3