Coleman v. Astrue

Filing 76

ORDER DENYING 75 Plaintiff's "Motion for Judicial Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security." Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/29/2013.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division JOHN COLEMAN, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 No. C 08-03789 LB Plaintiff, v. 13 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISION OF COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 14 15 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 16 On August 7, 2008, pro se plaintiff John Coleman filed a complaint against Defendant Michael 17 J. Astrue by which he sought review of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of his 18 application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits as of July 27, 2004. See 19 Complaint, ECF Nos. 1. Exactly one year later, on August 7, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge 20 Wayne D. Brazil denied Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and granted in part and 21 denied in part Mr. Coleman’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Mr. Coleman was disabled 22 and remanding the action to the SSA “for the AWARD of benefits earned during the period from 23 July 27, 2004, to August 3, 2005.” 8/7/2009 Order, ECF No. 33 at 16. In addition, Judge Brazil 24 remanded for further administrative proceeding to determine whether benefits were due after August 25 3, 2005. Id. at 17, 18. 26 On January 11, 2010, this matter was re-assigned from Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil to the 27 undersigned. Order Reassigning Case, ECF No. 39. A few days later, Mr. Coleman filed a letter, 28 alleging that the SSA failed to comply with Judge Brazil’s August 7, 2009 order. 1/13/2010 Letter, C 08-03789 LB ORDER August 3, 2005, and Mr. Coleman argued that Judge Brazil’s order required the SSA to pay benefits 3 from July 27, 2004 though February 28, 2005 as well. See id.; 3/23/2013 Letter, ECF No. 44. 4 Following the court’s construal of Mr. Coleman’s January 13, 2010 letter as a mandamus petition to 5 enforce the judgment, see 2/23/2010 Order, ECF No. 40, the court found that the SSA had complied 6 with Judge Brazil’s order for payment of benefits “earned during the period from July 27, 2004 to 7 August 3, 2005,” because Mr. Coleman was entitled to payment of benefits only as of March 1, 8 2005, the first day of the month following February 17, 2005, the protective filing date of his 9 application for benefits. 7/14/2010 Order, ECF No. 59 (emphasis in original). The undersigned 10 determined that payment of benefits as of March 1, 2005 was payment of the benefits “earned” 11 during the disability period and therefore, was consistent with Judge Brazil’s order. Id. at 3 (citing 12 For the Northern District of California ECF No. 38. The SSA had awarded Mr. Coleman benefits only for the period of March 1, 2005 to 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 42 U.S.C. § 1382(c)(7)(a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.202(g), 416.501, 416.335; Bracken v. Astrue, No. C 13 07-764, 2009 WL 542214, at *6 n.6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009); Collins v. Astrue, No. C 08-5092, 14 2009 WL 112863, at *14 n.5 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2009)). 15 In addition to denying the mandamus petition to enforce the judgment, the court also considered 16 Mr. Coleman’s request—which he raised for the first time in a May 20, 2010 letter—to have the 17 court review the ALJ’s most recent “unfavorable determination of long term disability.” Id. at 3 18 (citing, e.g., 5/20/2010 Letter, ECF No. 52). This court explained to Mr. Coleman that it lacked 19 jurisdiction to consider any decisions about payment of benefits after August, 3, 2005 because 20 judicial review is appropriate only after a timely appeal of any final decision by the SSA. Id. Mr. 21 Coleman had not shown that the SSA had made a final decision or that he timely appealed. 22 Since then, Mr. Coleman has continued to request that the court reconsider its July 14, 2010 Order 23 denying Mr. Coleman’s mandamus petition to enforce Judge Brazil’s August 7, 2009 Order and 24 declining to review the SSA’s decisions regarding the payment of benefits after August 3, 2005. In 25 July 2010, Mr. Coleman filed two separate motions: (1) a motion for reconsideration of the court’s 26 July 14, 2010 Order and (2) a motion for “Court Review [of the] Full Disability Issue.” 7/22/2010 27 Motion for Reconsideration, ECF Nos. 60; Motion for Court Review of the Full Disability Issue, 28 ECF No. 62. On August 2, 2010, the court denied Mr. Coleman’s motion for reconsideration C 08-03789 LB ORDER 2 1 because he failed to show that (1) at the time of the motion, a material difference in fact or law 2 existed that was not previously presented to the court, (2) there has been an emergence of new 3 material facts or a change in law since the court issued its order, or (3) there was a “manifest failure 4 by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments” that were presented to it. 5 8/2/2010 Order, ECF No. 63 at 2-3 (citing N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9). In addition, the court denied 6 Mr. Coleman’s Motion for “Court Review [of the] Full Disability Issue” as moot because this case 7 was closed on August 7, 2009. Id. at 2. Mr. Coleman appealed the court’s July 14, 2010 and August 8 2, 2010 Orders, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s rulings on February 7, 2011. Notice of 9 Appeal, ECF No. 65; 2/7/2011 Ninth Circuit Order, ECF No. 69. Brazil’s August 7, 2009 Judgment, Pages 16 and 17 of Judge Brazil’s August 7, 2009 Order, and 12 For the Northern District of California On July 15, 2011, Mr. Coleman filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment,” attaching Judge 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 part of an application for disability benefits. 7/15/2011 Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13 72. Again, the court denied Mr. Coleman’s summary judgment as moot because the case was 14 closed. 7/27/2011 Order, ECF No. 73. A few months later, Mr. Coleman submitted a letter “Asking 15 [the] Court for Reconsideration or Instructions.” 10/20/2011 Letter, ECF No. 74. Mr. Coleman 16 requested instructions on how to proceed in order to obtain his social security benefits. Id. 17 The issue at present concerns Mr. Coleman’s most recently filed document, which is a “Motion 18 for Judicial Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security.” 12/18/2012 Motion for 19 Judicial Review, ECF No. 75. Mr. Coleman used a form complaint for SSA appeal action, and on 20 the caption page, Mr. Coleman appears to have crossed out the word “complaint” and inserted 21 “motion.” Id. at 1. From what the court can tell, Mr. Coleman continues to challenge a ruling by the 22 SSA, but the court is unable to determine what it is. See id. at 3-5. It may also ask the court to once 23 again reconsider its July 14, 2010 Order. See id. In support of this motion, Mr. Coleman submitted 24 five items: (1) a copy of a SSA Policy Interpretation Ruling (SSR 96-1p); (2) his briefs to the SSA 25 Appeals Council; (3) a medical opinion from a Dr. Slabaugh dated March 16, 2012; (4) an economic 26 news release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; and (5) Mr. Coleman’s profile. 27 Id. at 6-27. 28 To the extent that Mr. Coleman is seeking review of a ruling by the SSA, this court lacks C 08-03789 LB ORDER 3 1 jurisdiction to consider payments of benefits after August 3, 2005. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 2 district courts have jurisdiction to review any final decision of the Commissioner if the plaintiff 3 initiates the suit within 60 days of the decision. “[T]he finality required for judicial review is 4 achieved only after the further steps of a hearing before an administrative law judge and, possibly, 5 consideration by the Appeals Council.” Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 765 (1975). Therefore, a 6 plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. Mathews v. 7 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 327 (1976). There is nothing to indicate that Mr. Coleman has done this. In 8 any case, if he seeks judicial review of another SSA ruling, he should file a new complaint. To that 9 end, Mr. Coleman should contact the court’s VLSP Legal Help Center, which is located in Room 2796 on the 15th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse. The Courthouse is located at 450 Golden 11 Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 13 14 15 16 17 To the extent that Mr. Coleman is seeking reconsideration of the court’s July 14, 2010 Order, Mr. Coleman once again does not meet the requirements of Local Rule 7-9. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Coleman's “Motion for Judicial Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security.” IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 29, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 08-03789 LB ORDER 4

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?