Brown v. Social Security Administration

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The motion for reconsideration is denied. TheClerk is directed to maintain this case on the closed docket. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 6/24/2013. C/M (Siegfried, Evan)

i

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------x
ELAINE BROWN,

Plaintiff,
-againstMEMORANDUM & ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,

10-CV-784 (ENV)

Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

VITALIANO, D.J.

On September 17, 2012,pro se plaintiff Elaine Brown filed a letter
challenging this Court's Memorandum and Order dismissing the complaint, dated
June 29, 2012, as well as its Judgment of dismissal, dated July 10, 2012. Although
not explicitly styled as such, the letter suggests that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of
the Memorandum and Order and Judgment pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.

Background

Although familiarity with the underlying facts and litigation history is
I

presumed, a brief description of the case's procedural posture will still be helpful. It
begins on February 19,2010, when plaintiff Elaine Brown filed a complaint seeking
review of determinations by the Social Security Administration ("SSA") related to a
disability award and payments made pursuant to it. By Memorandum and Order,
dated June 29, 2012, the Court dismissed the complaint, on the ground that plaintiff
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Eschewing appeal, plaintiff filed the
letter the Court construes as a motion requesting reconsideration.

Discussion

Local Civil Rule 6.3 allows motions for reconsideration regarding
"matters or controlling decisions which [movant] believes the court has
overlooked." Local Civ. R. 6.3. "The standard for granting such a motion is strict,
and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -

matters, in other words,

that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court."
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Relief under Rule
60(b) is similarly restricted. See Ravnikar v. Latif, 2010 WL 4875877 (E.D.N.Y.
2010). As it "allows extraordinary judicial relief, it is invoked only upon a showing
of exceptional circumstances." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986).
Nothing in Brown's motion provides a basis for the Court to alter its
decision dismissing the complaint. The letter does precisely what is meritless on a
2

motion for reconsideration. Brown simply reiterates her earlier argument that SSA
miscalculated her benefits. Even if she is correct and SSA did err in it calculations,
that mathematical error would not overcome the jurisdictional consequence of her
failure to exhaust her administrative remedies by timely application to the Appeals
Council seeking review of the administrative law judge's determination as to the
propriety of the onset date of her disability or of the Notice of Award informing her
of her entitlement to disability benefits. 1 Simply put, neither this Court nor any
other district court can hear a challenge to a SSA determination unless the claimant
has exhausted all administrative remedies. Dietsch v. Schweiker, 700 F.2d 865, 867
(2d Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has offered no authority which would justify
reconsideration.
Because Brown's letter does not call the Court's attention to case law or
relevant facts that plaintiff believes the Court overlooked in its original decision, the
motion fails. See Wall v. Construction & Gen. Laborer's Union, 2009 WL 230122 at

* 1 (2d Cir. 2009).

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the motion for reconsideration is denied. The
Clerk is directed to maintain this case on the closed docket.

1

Alternatively, plaintiff could have, but did not, file a new district court action within 60 days of
the issuance of the ALJ's order.
3

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in

forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED
Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
June 24, 2012

s/ ENV
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

4