Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 47

ORDER directing the Commissioner to provide information requested in points 1-4 on page two of this order. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 01/18/2017. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Reginald Evans,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.1: 15-4953-RMG

ORDER

This Court, by order dated February 29, 2016, dismissed this pro se action because of
Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 18). On appeal, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with this Court's conclusion that it lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405 where a Social Security claimant had not
exhausted his administrative remedies. Evans v. Commissioner ofSocial Security, No. 16-1392,
2016 WL 6575081 (4th Cir. 2016). The Fourth Circuit went on to rule, however, that the lower
court should consider whether the "administrative process normally available is not accessible
because the agency fails or refuses to act," which would provide a potential basis for a writ of
mandamus. (Jd. at I). This Court's earlier order was vacated and remanded to consider this
Issue.
Based on the record before the Court, which is now exclusively made of filings by
Plaintiff, the Court is unable to reliably ascertain the status of any administrative proceedings
presently pending before the Social Security Administration and the history of any applications

-1­

by Plaintiff for Social Security Disability benefits. Therefore, in order to address Plaintiffs
potential right to the issuance of mandamus, the Commissioner is directed to file a memorandum
within fifteen days of this order addressing the following issues and providing the following
documents:
1.

Provide a copy of all applications for DIB and SSI filed by Plaintiff since 2010;

2.

Set forth in detail all stages of the administrative processes which have been
followed regarding each application for disability benefits of Plaintiff with the
Social Security Administration since 2010 and provide documents supporting the
same;

3.

State with specificity the present status of each application for disability benefits;
and

4.

Describe in detail the circumstances, if any, in which the Social Security
Administration asserts that Plaintiff s administrative or judicial appellate rights
have languished because of an untimely appeal or any other reason.

Plaintiff may file a response to the Commissioner's filing within fifteen days of the
Commissioner's submission ifhe contests the factual basis of any of the Commissioner's
statements or documents and may file documents supporting his position.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark rgel
United States Di trict Judge

-2­

Charlest09, South Carolina

January _1 2017

i>,

-3­