Bass v. Colvin

Filing 63

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 62 Request For Order Denying Defendant Leave to Substitute Counsel, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (KERR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 DONNIE L. BASS, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 No. C13-2025RSL v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Donnie L. Bass’s request for an order denying defendant leave to substitute counsel in this case. Dkt. # 62. Having considered plaintiff’s request and the remainder of the record, the Court denies plaintiff’s request for the reasons that follow. On May 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff was entitled to a waiver of overpayment, relieving plaintiff of the obligation to repay $8,845.19 in overpaid disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Dkt. # 47. On August 12, 2016, defendant represented that “SSA will (1) waive any remaining repayment; and (2) pay back to Plaintiff and his child all money already collected from the overpayment.” Dkt. # 51 at 2. On August 16, 2016, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P. Donohue, Dkt. # 53, and dismissed this case with prejudice. Dkt. ## 54, 55. On January 13, 2017, plaintiff notified the Court that he had received a letter from the 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST - 1 1 SSA, dated November 16, 2016, informing plaintiff that he owed the SSA $17,331.40. Dkt. 2 # 56. On February 2, 2017, the Court ordered defendant to show that the Social Security 3 Administration had not violated the orders of this Court and the Ninth Circuit by asking plaintiff 4 to repay $17,331.40 in overpaid benefits. Dkt. # 57. Defendant responded, clarifying that the 5 amount sought from plaintiff is currently $8,486.21, which derives from an unadjudicated 6 overpayment of $10,687 but nonetheless accounts for the court-ordered overpayment waiver of 7 $8,845.19. Dkt. # 60. Defendant indicated that plaintiff had administratively requested 8 reconsideration of the newly calculated $8,486.21 overpayment. Dkt. # 60-1. Satisfied that the 9 Social Security Administration had followed the court orders, the Court vacated its order to 10 show cause. Dkt. # 61. Also in February 2017, attorney Nancy A. Mishalanie appeared on behalf of defendant, 11 12 and attorney Richard A. Morris withdrew as counsel for defendant. Dkt. ## 58, 59. On 13 February 16, 2017, plaintiff asked the Court to deny defendant’s change of counsel. Plaintiff 14 further indicated that he had challenged the $17,331.40 overpayment administratively. Dkt. 15 # 62. 16 The Court denies plaintiff’s request to prevent defendant from changing counsel. 17 Defendant is free to change counsel, and such changes are not (as plaintiff suggests) evidence of 18 an attempt to avoid court orders – which, after all, bind defendant no matter how many times 19 defendant changes counsel. 20 As to plaintiff’s continued concern that the SSA is ignoring court orders: the $8,486.21 21 overpayment that the SSA now seeks from plaintiff appears to be unrelated to the overpayment 22 addressed in the orders of this Court and of the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the Court lacks 23 jurisdiction to address the $8,486.21 overpayment until plaintiff has exhausted his administrative 24 remedies and received a final decision regarding that overpayment from the Commissioner of 25 Social Security. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties have indicated that plaintiff is already 26 pursuing administrative relief. Under the circumstances, there is nothing more that this Court 27 can do. 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST - 2 1 For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request (Dkt. # 62) is DENIED. 2 3 DATED this 27th day of February, 2017. 4 5 6 A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST - 3

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?