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)
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?