Rocha v. Social Security Administration

Filing 32

ORDER STRIKING 26 Appendix/Supplement filed by Carlos Eliazar Rocha by Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea. (cbf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CARLOS ELIAZAR ROCHA,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 16-cv-1088 KRS
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S APPENDIX/SUPPLEMENT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s appendix/supplement to his motion to
reverse or remand the agency’s adverse determination denying benefits. [Doc. 26]. The filing
does not add additional argument, but does include documents that appear to show various
disciplinary actions taken by Plaintiff’s employer in 2017. Defendant has responded to the
appendix/supplement and challenges it as an improper attempt to supplement the administrative
record. The Court FINDS the appendix/supplement is not properly before it and STRIKES it
from the docket.
This Court’s review is limited to the administrative record, which consists of the
evidence that was before the agency at the time the decision became final. See Weinberger v.
Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 763, (1975) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Brandtner v. Dep't of Health and
Human Servs., 150 F.3d 1306, 1307 (10th Cir. 1998). Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act
specifically provides that the Court’s review is made “upon the pleadings and transcript of the
record.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court, however, “may at any time order additional evidence to
be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new
evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such
evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” Id.

Plaintiff’s appendix/supplement is neither part of the administrative record nor a
pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (explaining “[o]nly these pleading are allowed a complaint; (1) a
complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a
counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a thirdparty complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer”). To the extent the Court
could construe Plaintiff’s appendix/supplement as a motion to supplement the record, Plaintiff
has not made a showing of materiality. The documents concern a time frame after the period of
disability the agency considered in denying his applications for benefits. Explicit in Section
405(g) is also that the agency first consider any new material. Thus, the Court could not
examine the appendix/supplement even if it determined the new records were material, which the
Court does not. At most, the Court could summarily remand the case so the agency could take
additional evidence.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s appendix/supplement is not properly before it. Even
liberally construing his pro se filing, the Court is not permitted to grant the relief Plaintiff
appears to request. The Court itself may not review the new information, and Plaintiff does not
meet the standard that would allow the Court to remand the matter to the agency.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appendix/supplement [Doc. 26] is
STRICKEN and the Clerk of Court is directed to remove it from the docket.

_________________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presiding by Consent