Boakye-Yiadom v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 68

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 57 Motion for Permission to Reopen Case as Moot.(kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OHENE BOAKYE-YIADOM,

Case No. 13-cv-03076-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PERMISSION TO REOPEN CASE AS
MOOT
Re: Dkt. No. 57

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On August 19, 2014, the Court remanded this Social Security case to the Commissioner for

14

further proceedings. (Aug. 19, 2014 Order, Dkt. No. 59.) On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff Ohene

15

Boakye-Yiadom filed a document captioned "Motion for Permission to Re-Open Case Due to

16

Agency's Inordinate Delay in Implementing Court Order, APA 5 555(b), 706(1), Extraordinary

17

Circum. FRCP. 60(b) (6); Alternatively, Injunctive Relief." (Pl.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 57 (spacing and

18

capitalization in original).) The Commissioner filed her opposition to the motion on April 9,

19

2015. (Def.'s Opp'n, Dkt. No. 61.) Plaintiff's reply followed on April 22, 2015. (Pl.'s Reply, Dkt.

20

No. 61.)

21

Plaintiff filed the motion on the ground that the Commissioner had not complied with the

22

Social Security Administration's Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Manual (the "HALLEX")

23

guideline I-2-1-55(D)(4). (Pl.'s Mot. at 12.) That guideline provides:

24
25
26

A delayed court remand case is over 125 days old (counting from the date of the
court's order) or a court remand that the AC remanded to an ALJ a second time.
Flag and assign the case immediately. If the AC remanded a second time, assign to
a different ALJ.
HALLEX Guideline I-2-1-55(D)(4). Plaintiff claimed that the case had not been assigned to an

27
administrative law judge, even though this Court's remand order was issued on August 19, 2014.
28

1
2

(Pl.'s Mot. at 12.)
On June 25, 2015, the Court ordered the Commissioner to file a supplemental brief

3

addressing (1) why the Court should not modify its August 19, 2014 remand order to include a

4

deadline for the hearing, and (2) how, if at all, HALLEX guideline I-2-1-55 should affect this

5

Court's decision. (June 25, 2015 Order at 4, Dkt. No. 64.) The Commissioner was given 14 days

6

to file her supplemental brief, and Plaintiff was given the option to file a response to the

7

Commissioner's supplemental brief 14 days after its filing. (Id.)

8
9

On July 9, 2015, the Commissioner filed her supplemental brief along with a declaration of
Eric Jimenez, the Group Supervisor in the SSA's San Francisco Office of Disability Adjudication
and Review. (Def.'s Supp. Br., Jimenez Decl., Dkt. No. 66.) Attached to Mr. Jimenez's

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

declaration is a Notice of Hearing, advising Plaintiff that an administrative law judge has

12

scheduled a hearing to take place on August 24, 2015. (Jimenez Decl., Ex. A.)

13

On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed his response to the Commissioner's supplemental brief.

14

(Pl.'s Supp. Br., Dkt. No. 67.) In the filing, Plaintiff acknowledges that a hearing is scheduled for

15

August 24, 2015, but he nonetheless argues that the Court should continue to monitor this case

16

until final decision because of some possible risk of future delay. (Id. at 2.) As Plaintiff has now

17

received a Notice of Hearing, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court rejects

18

Plaintiff's remaining arguments.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 07/27/15
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2