Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00380/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00380-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVIS MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Officially as 

Acting Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DELAYED DECISION [DOC. NO. 37] 

& MOTION TO QUASH 

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE [DOC. 

NO. 39]

Presently before the Court are two motions filed by plaintiff Travis Morgan. In the 

first Motion, which was filed December 26, 2018, he requests the Court delay its decision

on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment to allow him time to file another 

motion, the nature of which he does not describe. Doc. No. 37. This mystery motion

appears, however, to be the second Motion currently before the Court, which was filed 

nunc pro tunc on January 9, 2019, rendering plaintiff’s first Motion as moot. Doc. No. 39.

In the second Motion, plaintiff requests the Court quash evidence in the 

administrative record that defendant received from the IRS regarding plaintiff’s earnings 

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 41 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC

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

for 2008 and 2009, on the basis the IRS has since corrected its records of plaintiff’s earning 

for those years. Id., Ex. F001-006.

The Court’s role in this case is to review the final decision of the Commissioner to 

determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence in the certified administrative 

record and is free from legal error.

1 See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h); Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 

1158 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court’s duty requires it to review the entire record as a whole. 

See e.g. Hill, 698 F.3d at 1158-59. It may not, therefore, remove evidence that is part of 

the administrative record, and which was considered by the Commissioner in making its 

final determination. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2019

 

1

 The Court has completed its review of the administrative record and the arguments 

raised by the parties in their respective cross-motions and concluded the Commissioner’s 

final determination, including specifically the finding regarding plaintiff’s earnings for 

2008 and 2009, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, given plaintiff’s 

testimony and evidence corroborating his claim the IRS records relied on by the ALJ were 

erroneous. [Doc. No. 40.] As such, the Court has recommended plaintiff’s case be 

remanded for further administrative proceedings, including further developing the record 

and making a proper finding on this issue. Id. 

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 41 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2