Peet v. Colvin et al

Filing 26

Order Granting in Part 21 Defendant's Motion to Reopen Case; Denying as Moot 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause. Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/12/2015. (DLO) CC: Peet. (kt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-851 (DSD/SER)
John E. Peet,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissoner of Social Security,
Defendant.

John E. Peet, 16638 Franklin Trail #319, Prior Lake, MN,
55372, pro se.
Pamela Marentette, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office, 300
South 4th Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, counsel for
defendant.
This matter is before the court upon the motion to reopen and
to show cause by defendant Carolyn Colvin, the Acting Commissioner
of Social Security, and the motion to show cause by pro se
plaintiff John E. Peet. Based on a review of the file, record, and
proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants
the Commissioner’s motion in part and denies Peet’s motion as
moot.1

1

Peet styles his submission as a motion to show cause, but in
substance it requests the court to not dismiss his action at this
time. Although the court does not find that dismissal is warranted
at the time, there is also no basis to issue a show cause order
against the Commissioner. Accordingly, the court will deny Peet’s
motion to show cause as moot.

BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2013, Peet filed a complaint challenging the
Commissioner’s decision to deny him disability benefits.

In lieu

of answering the complaint, the Commissioner moved to remand the
case for a de novo administrative hearing pursuant to sentence six
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), because the recording of Peet’s January 22,
2008 hearing was blank.

ECF No. 7.

The court granted the motion,

and a de novo hearing was held on December 4, 2014.
Ex. 1, at 4.

See ECF No. 21

On December 18, 2014, the Commissioner issued a

partially favorable decision.

Id.

Specifically, the Commissioner

found that Peet became disabled as of October 1, 2007, and remained
disabled through the date of the decision.
Commissioner now moves to reopen this matter.

Id. at 5.

The

Moreover, because

Peet received a partially favorable decision, the Commissioner also
requests an order directing Peet to show cause as to why this case
should not be dismissed.
motion

to

show

cause

ECF No. 20.
on

August

In response, Peet filed a

10,

2015,

challenging

the

Commissioner’s decision on remand. ECF No. 24. Specifically, Peet
argues that he is entitled to disability benefits as of August
1999.

Id. at 3.
DISCUSSION

The court retains jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s
decision on remand under sentence six of § 405(g).
Astrue,

477

F.3d

1037,

1039

(8th

2

Cir.

2007).

Travis v.
Following

a

rehearing, the Commissioner must “modify or affirm [her] findings
of fact or ... decision, or both,” and file the findings of fact or
decision with the court.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

In any case in which

the Commissioner issues a decision that is not fully favorable to
the plaintiff, the Commissioner must also file “a transcript of the
additional record and testimony upon which the Commissioner’s
action in modifying or affirming was based.”

Id.

The local rules of this district govern the procedure for
judicial review following a sentence six remand. See D. Minn. L.R.
7.2.
the

If the Commissioner’s final decision on remand is adverse to
plaintiff,

the

Commissioner

must

file

and

serve

the

administrative record on which the decision is based within sixty
days after the decision is rendered.

Id. 7.2(d)(1).2

The filing

of the record triggers the briefing schedule contemplated by Local
Rule 7.2(c). The decision rendered on remand was partially adverse
to Peet, and as a result, a show cause order against either party
is not warranted at this time.

However, because the deficiencies

on which the remand was based have now been cured, the court will
reopen the matter.

2

Although a final decision was issued on December 14, 2014,
the Commissioner was not notified of the decision until June 10,
2015. See ECF No. 21, at 1. The court will therefore waive the
sixty-day deadline under Local Rule 7.2(d)(1). Moreover, because
this action was remanded before the Commissioner answered Peet’s
complaint, the court also directs the Commissioner to serve and
file an answer. See D. Minn. L.R. 7.2(b)(1).
3

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s motion to reopen and show cause [ECF No. 21]

is granted in part, as set forth above;
2.

Plaintiff’s motion to show cause [ECF No. 24] is denied

as moot;
3.

Within sixty days after the date of this order, the

Commissioner must file and serve an answer to the complaint and a
certified copy of the administrative record on which her decision
is based, triggering the briefing schedule set forth in Local Rule
7.2(c); and
4.

This matter is referred to the magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 7.2(a).

Dated:

August 12, 2015
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

4