Edwards v. Colvin

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE that the plaintiff's counsel shall show cause, on or before September 26, 2016, why this case should not be dismissed as moot. Progression of this case is stayed pending substitution of a proper plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEVEN C. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,

8:16-CV-157

vs.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
The defendant's answer in this case suggests that this appeal has been
mooted by the death of the plaintiff. When a federal court can no longer grant
effective relief, the issue is moot and the court has no power to decide the
issue. Lebanon Chem. Corp. v. United Farmers Plant Food Inc., 179 F.3d
1095, 1099 (8th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S.
149, 150 (1996). The Court will order the plaintiff's counsel to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed as moot.
The plaintiff in this case was pursuing disability benefits pursuant to
both Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.
(SSDI benefits), and pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 301 et seq.: Social Security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits and
supplemental security income (SSI) benefits, respectively. But Social Security
regulations limit to whom an underpayment is posthumously payable. For
SSDI benefits, an underpayment may be payable to an eligible surviving
spouse, child, parent, or estate administrator. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.503. For
SSI benefits, only an eligible surviving spouse or parent may receive an
underpayment. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.542; see also Smith v. Califano, 597 F.2d
152, 155-59 (9th Cir. 1979).
Assuming that the plaintiff is, in fact, deceased, it is unknown whether
there is any eligible payee who is willing to pursue whatever claim may
persist for past-due benefits. Accordingly, it is also unknown whether the
Court could, upon finding error, grant effective relief. The Court will
therefore direct the plaintiff's counsel to show cause why this case should not
be dismissed as moot. Such cause shall include affirmative evidence that this
appeal can be prosecuted in the interest of an individual who meets the
criteria for an eligible payee, as set forth in the above-cited regulations. The

Court will also stay progression of this case pending substitution of a proper
plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The plaintiff's counsel shall show cause, on or before
September 26, 2016, why this case should not be dismissed
as moot.

2.

Progression of this case is stayed pending substitution of a
proper plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

Dated this 8th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

-2-