Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00308/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion requesting

that the Court excuse the untimely service of process. (Doc. 9). 

Because the undersigned has recommended that Defendant’s motion be

granted, and that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed on the ground

that it was untimely filed, it is not necessary to address Plaintiff’s

motion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE L. PENN, JR., *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 07-00308-CB-B

 *

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of Social *

Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g) seeking

seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security. This action was referred to the undersigned for

report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 11)1. Upon careful review of Defendant’s motion and supporting

memorandum, Plaintiff’s response in opposition, and the record evidence,

the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be GRANTED.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Willie L. Penn, Jr. sought review before the Appeals

Council of a decision denying his application for benefits under the

Social Security Act. (Doc. 13). On February 23, 2007, the Appeals

Council issued a notice of its denial of Plaintiff’s request for review.

Case 1:07-cv-00308-CB-B Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 6
2

(Id.) According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the notice was not received in

his office until March 3, 2007, and upon receipt of the notice, the

deadline for filing a civil action was inadvertently calendared for May

3, 2007, instead of April 30, 2007. (Id.) Plaintiff’s complaint was

filed in this Court on May 3, 2007. (Doc. 1)

The Commissioner, on December 18, 2007, filed the instant motion to

dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Doc. 11). The

Commissioner argues that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as

untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after receipt of the

final decision of the Commissioner. In his response, Plaintiff

acknowledges that his complaint was not timely filed, and requests that

the Court toll the statute of limitations. Plaintiff asserts that he

will be forced to reapply and undergo the lengthy and cumbersome

application process again if his claim is dismissed, and that he should

not be punished for his counsel’s “slight miscalculation.” (Doc. 13).

 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides, in pertinent part:

Any individual, after any final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing

to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount

in controversy, 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 with

such further time as the Commissioner of Social

Security may allow. Such action shall be brought

in the district court of the United States for the

judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or 

has his principal place of business, or if he does 

not reside or have his principal place of business

within any such judicial district, in the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia...

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Eleventh Circuit has held that the

doctrine of equitable tolling applies to the statute of limitations

period embodied in § 405(g), and that a finding of extraordinary

Case 1:07-cv-00308-CB-B Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 6
3

circumstances is necessary before a court may equitably toll the SSA’s

statutory period. Jackson v. Astrue, 506 F.3d 1349, 1353 (llth Cir.

2007). In Jackson, the court indicated that in order to demonstrate

extraordinary circumstances, the plaintiff must come forth with evidence

establishing fraud, misinformation or deliberate concealment. The

plaintiff in Jackson presented evidence that she was proceeding pro se,

that she had no legal training, and that she had attempted, in good

faith, to timely file her complaint; however, she filed the complaint in

the wrong court. In rejecting the plaintiff’s claim, the Jackson court

found that the plaintiff was clearly notified that she was obligated to

timely commence suit in federal court, and that she failed to come forth

with any evidence which indicated that the Commissioner engaged in any

act of affirmative misconduct in an effort to mislead her. Id at 1358.

In the case sub judice, Plaintiff has not alleged, let alone

established, that the notice he received was somehow defective, or that

there was any misconduct on the part of the Commissioner. Plaintiff

acknowledges that his complaint was untimely filed because of a

calculating error made by his counsel. These facts are not sufficient,

under the standard set forth in Jackson, to establish equitable tolling.

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be

GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed as untimely.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this report and recommendation.

Case 1:07-cv-00308-CB-B Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 6
4

DONE this 31st day of January, 2008.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00308-CB-B Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 4 of 6
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can be

appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

Case 1:07-cv-00308-CB-B Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 5 of 6
6

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

 /s / SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00308-CB-B Document 14 Filed 01/31/08 Page 6 of 6