Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03504-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:402 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEVEN MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,1

Defendants.

Case No.5:13-cv-03504-HRL 

ORDER RE MOTION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 67, 68, 69

In this action, plaintiff appeals the Commissioner’s decision denying his claim for survivor 

benefits. The matter was remanded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence six.

Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint to assert a claim for mandamus directing the 

Commissioner to pay him the claimed survivor benefits, without any reductions. Additionally, he 

seeks sanctions against defendant on the ground that the remand proceedings are not complete. 

Insofar as plaintiff seeks mandamus on the ultimate issue of his claimed entitlement to benefits, 

his motion is denied. It is not apparent that the question of plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits is a 

matter falling within the Commissioner’s nondiscretionary duty, and § 405(g) is the exclusive 

remedy available. Hironymous v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1986). As for the status of the 

remand proceedings, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus (or an amended pleading) is 

 

1 Nancy A. Berryhill is automatically substituted for Carolyn Colvin as the defendant in this suit. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 71 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

unnecessary, inasmuch as plaintiff may seek (as he has done through the present motion) to 

enforce what he believes was required under the court’s prior April 17, 2015 order. On this 

record, it is unclear whether a finding of contempt or sanctions are warranted. The court sets a 

status conference for March 21, 2017, 1:30 p.m. to discuss the matter.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 71 Filed 03/08/17 Page 2 of 2