Palmer v. Martin O'Malley

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE re 25 - Signed by JUDGE MICAH W.J. SMITH on 11/25/2024. COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants shall be served by First Class Mail to t he address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on 11/25/2024. Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF).(jni)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
TIMEKIA NIKIA PALMER,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 24?00128 MWJS?KJM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REOPEN CASE

vs.
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Timekia Nikia Palmer’s motion to reopen the
case, which is in substance a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 25. The
Commissioner opposes it. ECF No. 26.
1. Palmer alleges that she suffers from severe impairments that preclude her
from engaging in full?time work. She therefore applied for disability benefits under the
Social Security Act. After her application was initially denied, she asked for a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). She appeared at that hearing without the
assistance of a representative. See ECF No. 18?3, at PageID.994?95. Following the
hearing, the ALJ denied Palmer’s application, and Palmer then appealed the decision to
this Court. ECF No. 1. Unable to find a lawyer, she asked this Court for assistance.
ECF No. 12. This Court offered what help it properly could, but Palmer ultimately was

not able to secure representation. ECF No. 15. She ultimately filed a pro se brief. ECF
No. 20.
Upon a review of that brief, as well as the Commissioner’s answering brief, this
Court concluded that there was no ground to disturb the ALJ’s findings and decision
and therefore affirmed the ALJ’s denial of benefits. Palmer v. O’Malley, Civil No. 24?
00128, 2024 WL 4647650 (D. Haw. Oct. 31, 2024). And because the Court determined
that the matter was suitable for disposition without a hearing, the Court issued its
decision without holding one, as authorized by Local Rule 7.1(c).
2. In her pending motion to reopen, Palmer emphasizes that she has been
litigating on “behalf of [herself]” and “handling this case alone” because she has not
been able to secure counsel. ECF No. 25, at PageID.2819. She argues that if a hearing
had been scheduled, there were “things that” she could have “added or included” and
that she could have “explained or referenced.” Id. She also suggests that she would
have been able to better explain the seriousness of her impairments at a hearing. Id.
And so she feels she “should be given a chance to come before the judge with [her]
documents and explain what has happened throughout my lifetime during the time of
these applications and what is going on with [her] mentally and physically.” Id.; see also
id. (“I feel as though I should be able to be in front of the judge to explain those things if
I have not been able to explain them in the correct format or in the correct manner as far
as the case[ is] concerned because I am doing it all by myself.”).
2

These are understandable arguments. Although Palmer suffers from severe
impairments, she was unable to retain a lawyer to assist her and, consequently, was left
to navigate the Social Security system alone. That system—and the body of case law
that has developed around it—is difficult to get a handle on, even for trained lawyers.
It is hard to imagine how most individuals suffering from severe impairments are
supposed to do so on their own. So it is understandable that Palmer emphasizes the
fact that she litigated this case without assistance at critical stages, including both at her
hearing before the ALJ and in this Court.
There is a second reason why Palmer’s motion to reopen is quite understandable:
she wants her day in court. She asks for a chance to present her evidence and to offer
her own statements to show that she truly is disabled within the meaning of the law. It
is certainly natural to think of a hearing in court as a chance to do just that.
But in Social Security cases, this Court is not allowed to make its own factual
determinations; it does not get to decide, in the first instance, who is factually right or
wrong. This Court does not get to take new evidence or testimony. Instead, “the ALJ is
the final arbiter with respect to resolving ambiguities in the medical evidence.” Palmer,
2024 WL 4647650, at *3 (cleaned up). The Court’s role is limited to determining
whether, based on the administrative record that has already been compiled, there is
enough “relevant evidence” in support of the ALJ’s findings “as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (cleaned up). If such evidence
3

exists in the administrative record, then this Court must affirm the ALJ, even if the
Court could have reached different conclusions—were it permitted to do so—and even
if an evidentiary hearing in this Court might conceivably have led to different factual
findings. The point of a hearing in this Court would simply be to hear argument on the
question of whether the administrative record offered legally sufficient support for the
ALJ; any new documents or statements that were not already in the administrative
record would have no bearing on this Court’s analysis.
In this case, the Court endeavored to construe Palmer’s pro se brief broadly, and
it therefore considered the strongest arguments it plausibly suggested against the ALJ’s
decision. But even still, the administrative record—which the Court carefully
reviewed—did provide sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusions. For that
reason, the Court was legally required to affirm the ALJ’s decision. And for that reason,
too, a hearing could not have changed that outcome. The Court’s decision not to hold a
hearing therefore cannot serve as an adequate basis to reopen the case or reconsider the
Court’s order.
The Court does not minimize the challenges Palmer has faced, either in litigating
this case pro se or in managing her impairments. But because there is no sufficient
reason to grant her the relief she seeks, her motion is DENIED.
//
//

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 25, 2024, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

/s/ Micah W.J. Smith
Micah W.J. Smith
United States District Judge

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Civil No. 24?00128 MWJS?KJM; Timekia Nikia Palmer v. Martin O’Malley; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE

5