Mayhew v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT 15 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FILE 16 THE PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO ANSWER THE AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR THE FILING OF CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND TERMINATING AS MOOT 17 PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/18/2014 (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

JOHN MAYHEW,

Case No. 13-cv-04521-BLF

Plaintiff,
11

17

ORDER TERMINATING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DIRECTING
THE CLERK TO FILE THE PROPOSED
AMENDED COMPLAINT; DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING A
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR THE
FILING OF CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
TERMINATING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

18

[Re: ECF 15, 16, 17]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

14
15
16

19
20
This order addresses several documents filed by Plaintiff and modifies the case schedule.

21
22
23

I.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
This action arises out of the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff John Mayhew was

24

overpaid benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et. seq. The Social

25

Security Administration initially determined that Plaintiff had been overpaid in the amount of

26

$16,004.40. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 10) The overpayments resulted from Plaintiff’s

27

receipt of benefits for months in which he was incarcerated for all or part of the month. (AR 11)

28

The Code of Federal Regulations provides that, “No monthly benefits will be paid to any

1

individual for any month any part of which the individual is confined in a jail, prison, or other

2

penal institution or correctional facility for conviction of a felony.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(a).
Plaintiff requested and was granted a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge

3
4

(“ALJ”). (AR 10) Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a written decision concluding that

5

Plaintiff was overpaid benefits because he received benefits for certain months in which he was

6

incarcerated. (AR 11) However, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was overpaid in the amount of

7

$8,599.80 instead of the $16,004.40 claimed by the Social Security Administration. (AR 13) The

8

ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have to repay $2,140 of that amount because the

9

corresponding checks were received by someone other than Plaintiff and cashed by means of
forgery. (AR 14) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had to repay a total of $6,459.80. (Id.) The

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ALJ found that recovery of the overpayment could not be waived because Plaintiff was not

12

without fault in causing the overpayment. (Id.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request

13

for review, rendering the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (AR 4)

14
15

II.

THIS ACTION
Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on September 30, 2013, seeking judicial review

16

of the Commissioner’s decision. Defendant Commissioner answered on March 3, 2014. Under

17

the Procedural Order for Social Security Review Actions governing this case, the next step is for

18

Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment or for remand. (Soc. Sec. Proc. Order, ECF 3)

19

Plaintiff was directed to file such motion within twenty-eight days after Defendant Commissioner

20

served the answer on Plaintiff. (Id.) Defendant served the answer on May 7, 2014 (Certificate of

21

Service, ECF 14), making Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment due on June 4, 2014.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

22

A.

23

On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document that does not bear a caption or other title,

24

setting forth facts related to his periods of incarceration and the overpayments by the Social

25

Security Administration; the Clerk docketed this document as a “Letter from John Mayhew.”

26

(Letter, ECF 15) On the same date, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service stating that he mailed

27

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Letter” to defense counsel. (POS, ECF 18). Thus it

28

appears that Plaintiff intended the uncaptioned and untitled document filed as ECF 15 to be his
2

1
2

motion for summary judgment.
For the reasons discussed below, the motion is TERMINATED AS MOOT, and Plaintiff is

3

granted leave to file a renewed motion for summary judgment or for remand. The Court directs

4

Plaintiff to caption or title his renewed motion so that it is clear to the Court and to Defendant that

5

it is the motion.

6

The Court also encourages Plaintiff to re-read the written decision of the Administrative
Law Judge, which finds that Plaintiff must repay a total $6,459.80. (AR 14) This amount is

8

significantly less than the original amount sought by the Social Security Administration. (AR 10)

9

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed June 2, 2014 suggests that

10

Plaintiff may not understand that his repayment obligation has been reduced to $6,459.80. If

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Plaintiff believes that the ALJ erred in finding that he must repay this amount, any renewed

12

motion for summary judgment must explain exactly why the ALJ’s written decision is not

13

supported by substantial evidence or is based upon the application of improper legal standards.

14

See Turner v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1222 n.2 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, any

15

motion for remand must explain exactly why the case should be sent back to the Social Security

16

Administration, for example, because there are “sufficient unanswered questions in the record” to

17

warrant further administrative proceedings. See Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.

18

2000). Simply describing events that predate the ALJ’s decision is insufficient to obtain relief

19

from this Court.

20

B.

21

On June 2, 2014 – the same date upon which he submitted the motion for summary

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

22

judgment – Plaintiff submitted a document titled “Ammending [sic] Complaint For Judicial

23

Review of Decision of Commissioner of Social Security.” (Prop. Am’d Compl., ECF 16) This

24

proposed amended complaint was stamped “Received” by the Clerk’s Office, but it was not filed.

25

Both the original complaint and the proposed amended complaint allege generally that Plaintiff

26

seeks review of an adverse decision of the Commissioner and that administrative remedies have

27

been exhausted. The proposed amended complaint adds an allegation that “The wage-earner I

28

draw SSA on was my Dad Harry A. Mayhew,” and a request that the Commissioner “Stop of [sic]
3

1

all garnishment on SSA checks and possible repay of all garnished money.” (Prop. Am’d Compl.

2

at 2)

3

A plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one

4

days after service of the answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Defendant served the answer on

5

May 7, 2014. (Certificate of Service, ECF 14) Thus Plaintiff was entitled to amend as a matter of

6

course within twenty-one days thereafter, extended by an additional three days because Defendant

7

served the answer by mail, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), or by May 31, 2014. Because May 31, 2014

8

fell on a Saturday, the deadline for amending as a matter of course was extended to the following

9

Monday, June 2, 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff submitted the proposed amended
complaint on June 2, 2014. Accordingly, THE CLERK SHALL FILE THE AMENDED

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

COMPLAINT. Because the amended complaint is timely, it supersedes the original complaint

12

and renders moot Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the original complaint.
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

13

C

14

In conjunction with the motion for summary judgment and the proposed amended

15

complaint, Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Applic., ECF 17) The

16

Court already has granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status in this action. (See Order Granting

17

Mot. for Leave to Proceed IFP, ECF 4) Accordingly, his renewed application is TERMINATED

18

AS MOOT.

19

III.

ORDER

20

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed June 2, 2014 is terminated as
moot;

(2)

the Clerk shall file Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint;

(3)

Defendant shall answer the amended complaint within twenty-one days after it is
filed;

(4)

Plaintiff shall file a motion for summary judgment within twenty-eight days after
service of Defendant’s answer;

(5)

Defendant shall file any opposition and/or cross-motion within twenty-eight days
after service of Plaintiff’s motion;

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

1

(6)

Plaintiff may file a reply within fourteen days after service of Defendant’s
opposition and/or cross-motion;

(7)

The matter thereafter will be submitted without oral argument; and

(8)

Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis is terminated as moot.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Dated: July 18, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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
5