Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00075/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00075-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The referenced exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Dennis Ford which is

attached to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Emery Sunday, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-75 TUC CKJ (JM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 10]. Plaintiff

has not responded. For the reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that

the motion be granted and the case dismissed.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On October 23, 2006, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a hearing decision

denying Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits

under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), and mailed a copy of the

decision to Plaintiff. Declaration of Dennis Ford (“Ford Decl.”), p. 3; Exhibit 1.1

 Plaintiff

filed a request for review of the decision. Ford Decl., p. 3. On October 24, 2007, the

Appeals Council sent notice to Plaintiff, and a copy to his representative, stating that the

Case 4:08-cv-00075-CKJ Document 11 Filed 02/09/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Appeals Council had denied his request for review. Ford Decl., p. 3; Exhibit 2. The appeals

Council notice informed Plaintiff and his representative that he had sixty (60) days from the

date of receipt to commence a civil action in federal district court. Ford Decl., p. 3; Exhibit

2. By letter dated December 28, 2007, Plaintiff, through his representative, requested an

extension of time within which to file a civil action. Ford Decl., p. 3, Exhibit 3. The

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request by letter dated January 9, 2008. Ford Decl., p.

3; Exhibit 4. On January 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review of the ALJ’s

decision denying his applications. Complaint [Docket No. 1]. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Act provides :

Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner

made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain a

review of such decision by a civil action commenced within

sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or

within such further time as the Commissioner may allow.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See also Banta v.Sullivan, 925 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting

and applying section 405(g)). The 60-day limitation is treated as a statute of limitations

subject to equitable tolling. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 480 (1986); Banta,

925 F.2d 346.

The complaint in this case was filed well outside the 60-day period provided by

section 405(g). The Appeals Council’s letter denying review was dated October 24, 2007.

The complaint was filed more than 90 days later, on January 27, 2008, and is therefore

untimely. Plaintiff has not alleged otherwise and has not offered any basis for an extension

of the filing deadline based on equitable tolling. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge

recommends the that the motion to dismiss be granted.

V. RECOMMENDATION FOR DISPOSITION BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.1 1.17(d)(2),

of the Local Rules – Civil of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the

Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the

record, Dismiss [Doc. No. 10].

Case 4:08-cv-00075-CKJ Document 11 Filed 02/09/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 08-75-TUCCKJ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 9th day of February, 2009.

Case 4:08-cv-00075-CKJ Document 11 Filed 02/09/09 Page 3 of 3