Goldstein v. Colvin

Filing 49

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 46 , 47 Motion and Revised Motion for Reversal; finding as moot 48 Motion to Appear by Telephone. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
STEVEN M. GOLDSTEIN,

12

Case No. 5:13-cv-03504 HRL

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
“MOTION FOR REVERSAL” AND
REVISED “MOTION FOR REVERSAL”

v.
14
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15

[Re: Dkt. Nos. 46, 47, 48]

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a motion and an amended motion seeking “reversal” of the portion of the

18

court’s April 17, 2015 order denying his request for payment of interim benefits. Both motions,

19

which are construed as ones for reconsideration, are procedurally improper. 1 The court

20

nevertheless has reviewed them and considered the matter. They are deemed suitable for

21

determination without oral argument. 2 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s

22

motions are denied.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The instant motions were noticed for a hearing on less than 35 days from the filing date and at a
time that does not coincide with this court’s civil law and motion calendar. Civ. L.R. 7.
Moreover, as plaintiff has previously been told, litigants seeking reconsideration are required to
seek leave from the court before filing such motions. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). And, such motions are set
for hearing only by court order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(d). Although plaintiff is representing himself, he is
obliged to obey rules that all litigants must follow, and there are only so many procedural missteps
that the court fairly can countenance.
2

Defendant’s request for permission to appear by phone at the motion hearing is denied as moot.

1

Plaintiff argues that this case is factually distinguishable from Mullen v. Sec’y of Health &

2

Human Servs., 878 F. Supp. 682 (D. Del. 1995). This court, however, cited Mullen for the general

3

legal principle that, absent explicit statutory authorization, district courts cannot use remedial

4

powers to order the Commissioner to pay interim benefits. Plaintiff has not persuaded the court

5

otherwise.

6

Plaintiff says that he sent several requests to the Appeals Council, seeking review of the

7

2011 adverse ALJ decision in question. That has already been pointed out in his other filings

8

(Dkt. 24-1 at 4), and this court took that into account when it said that the Appeals Council did not

9

deny plaintiff’s request for review until 2013. In any event, that does not change this court’s
principal holding that, absent express statutory authorization, district courts cannot use remedial

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

powers to order the Commissioner to pay interim benefits.

12

Plaintiff also points to a separate dispute he has with the Social Security Administration

13

(SSA) concerning the SSA’s claim that it overpaid his disability benefits. He argues that there

14

have also been delays and administrative mistakes in connection with that dispute and that the

15

SSA is retaliating against him in that matter for pursuing the instant appeal. But, as noted in the

16

April 17 order, the fact remains that plaintiff’s disability benefits are not the ones at issue in this

17

litigation. This appeal concerns his contention that the ALJ erred in denying his claim to survivor

18

benefits, and this court is unpersuaded that actions reportedly taken with respect to his disability

19

benefits entitles plaintiff to interim payments of the survivor benefits that are the subject of the

20

instant appeal.

21

Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the April 17, 2015 order are denied.

22

SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: May 18, 2015
______________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2

1
2

5:13-cv-03504-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Lynn M. Harada [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
Steven Michael Goldstein

[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3