Hall v. Colvin
Filing
20
ORDER that Plaintiff's filing entitled "Recommendation" [Doc. 19], which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/29/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00122-MR-DLH
DAMIAN HALL,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s filing entitled
“Recommendation,”
which
the
Court
construes
as
a
motion
for
reconsideration. [Doc. 19].
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2014, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a decision
denying the Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act, and mailed a copy thereof to Plaintiff and his representative
[Doc. 13-1 at 6]. The Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the
ALJ’s decision. On November 23, 2015, the Appeals Council mailed the
Plaintiff and his representative a Notice advising that the Plaintiff’s request
for review was denied.
The Notice specifically advised the Plaintiff as
follows:
If You Disagree With Our Action
If you disagree with our action, you may ask for court
review of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision by
filing a civil action.
If you do not ask for court review, the Administrative
Law Judge’s decision will be a final decision that can
be changed only under special rules.
How to File a Civil Action
You may file a civil action (ask for court review) by
filing a complaint in the United States District Court
for the judicial district in which you live….
*
*
*
Time to File a Civil Action
You have 60 days to file a civil action (ask for court
review).
*
*
*
If you cannot file for court review within 60 days, you
may ask the Appeals Council to extend your time to
file. You must have a good reason for waiting more
than 60 days to ask for court review. You must make
the request in writing and give your reason(s) in the
request.
[Doc. 13-1 at 24-25].
2
The Plaintiff filed his complaint with this Court on March 10, 2016.
[Doc. 1]. The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action as untimely.
[Doc. 12]. The Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Defendant’s
motion. [Doc. 14]. On August 30, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation, recommending that the Defendant’s
motion be granted.
[Doc. 15].
The Plaintiff did not object to this
Recommendation, and on September 23, 2016, this Court entered an Order
adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and dismissing this action
as untimely. [Doc. 17]. The Plaintiff, despite his failure to object within the
time allowed, now seeks reconsideration of that Order. [Doc. 19].
II.
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiff’s Complaint was properly dismissed as being untimely.1
The intent of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) was “to impose a 60-day limitation upon
judicial review of the [Commissioner’s] final decision on the initial claim for
benefits.” Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). The sixty-day
limitation period also serves as “a mechanism by which Congress was able
1
The Plaintiff argues as though his entitlement to benefits is a foregone conclusion, and
that the procedural deadlines are an irrelevant nuisance. [See Doc. 19 at 2 (“You all need
to go ahead and retract your actions and grant me my benefits.”)]. The determinations of
the ALJ and the Appeals Council, however, were that the Plaintiff is not entitled to
benefits. The only issue before this Court at present is whether the Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the procedural requirements brings to an end his attempts to overturn that
decision.
3
to move cases to speedy resolution in a bureaucracy that processes millions
of claims annually.” Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 481 (1986).
The sixty-day limitation period, however, may be tolled “where the
equities in favor of tolling the limitations period are ‘so great that deference
to the agency's judgment is inappropriate.’” City of New York, 476 U.S. at
480 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 330 (1976)). Equitable
tolling is available only in limited circumstances. See Block v. North Dakota
ex rel. Bd. of University and School Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983) (“when
Congress attaches conditions to legislation waiving the sovereign immunity
of the United States, those conditions must be strictly observed, and
exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied”).
Here, the Appeals Council sent its notice to the Plaintiff and his
representative on November 23, 2015.
Under the Commissioner’s
regulations, the recipients are presumed to have received that notice by
November 28, 2015. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.901 and 416.1401 (the date a
claimant receives notice means five days after the date on the notice, unless
the claimant can show that notice was not actually received during five-day
period). The Plaintiff initiated this action on March 10, 2016 — well after sixty
days of his presumptive receipt of notice of the Appeals Council’s November
23, 2015 denial of his request for review of the ALJ’s decision.
4
The Plaintiff claims that he went to the local Social Security
Administration office in Rockingham, North Carolina, “within the sixty days
allotted” and filed “the appeal.” [Doc. 14 at 1]. The Plaintiff further claims
that he was instructed by the SSA staff at the Rockingham office that he was
“doing the right thing to file at the local branch and they would send it to the
Federal Court” and that “if [t]he Federal Court needed any additional
information, they would contact [the Plaintiff] by mail.” [Id.]. In support of
this claim, the Plaintiff attaches a copy of what he purportedly filed with the
local SSA office.
The form, entitled “Request for Review of Hearing
Decision/Order” is date-stamped both December 16, 2015 and February 8,
2016. [Doc. 14 at 3]. This form, however, states on its face that it is a SSA
form used to appeal an ALJ decision to the Appeals Council. There is
nothing on this form to indicate that the Plaintiff intended this to be an appeal
to a District Court. The document does not support the Plaintiff’s argument;
it simply does not say what the Plaintiff argues that it says.
The Plaintiff further claims that “[o]nce he found out that he had to go
file his appeal at [t]he Federal Courthouse, then he went and file[d] the
correct appeal forms at [t]he Federal Courthouse.” [Doc. 14 at 1]. This,
however, is not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling. The Plaintiff does not
explain exactly when or how he learned of his error. He also fails to explain
5
why he did not follow the explicit instructions in the Appeals Council’s letter,
which advised him that he had sixty days to file a civil action in the District
Court in the judicial district where he lived. As such, the Plaintiff has not
shown what is necessary to overcome the high bar that is necessary to
demonstrate that equitable tolling of the sixty-day limitations period is
warranted in this case.2
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that his Complaint was
untimely filed and that this action was properly dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s filing entitled
“Recommendation” [Doc. 19], which the Court construes as a motion for
reconsideration, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 29, 2016
It is also noted that the Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
that this case be dismissed. The Plaintiff has provided no explanation for why he should
be excused from his repeated failure to abide by the deadlines.
6
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?