Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03504-6/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.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION1

Re: Dkt. Nos. 56, 57, 58, 62

Before the court are plaintiff’s third and fourth motions for reconsideration of this court’s 

orders denying his request for interim payment of his claimed survivor benefits based on his (now 

deceased) father’s retirement benefits. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–9(a), motions for 

reconsideration may not be filed without leave of court. Civ. L.R. 7–9(a) (“No party may notice a 

motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.”). Plaintiff 

has repeatedly been told that his motions for reconsideration are procedurally improper, but he 

nonetheless persists in filing motions that do not comply with the court’s rules. He has not sought 

leave of court to file such motions. And, although Civil Local Rule 7-9(d) provides that no 

hearings will be held on such motions unless ordered by the court, plaintiff continuously notices 

 

1

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Intervention” is denied as moot, the December 8, 2015 hearing is vacated, 

and defendant’s motion for telephonic appearance is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s “Motion for 

Intervention” is, in any event, not a proper one.

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 65 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 4
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

his improper motions for hearing---and on less than 35 days notice in violation of Civil Local Rule 

7-2. Plaintiff is representing himself, but that does not excuse him from complying with rules that 

all litigants are obliged to follow. Once again, plaintiff has not requested leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration. Therefore, the instant motion fails for this reason alone.

Even if plaintiff were to seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the motion would 

still be denied. Plaintiff argues that this court’s order denying his request for interim benefits is 

improper because the court should have followed Lightfoot v. Matthews, 430 F. Supp. 620 (N.D. 

Cal. 1977). Lightfoot is inapposite. It has nothing to do with the payment of interim benefits. 

Moreover, Lightfoot is not a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal Circuit 

Court of Appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court; and, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, it is not 

binding upon this court. Nor is it persuasive authority for reconsideration of this court’s decision 

that 42 U.S.C. § 423(g) does not provide statutory authority for payment of interim benefits to 

plaintiff.

Plaintiff also takes issue with the court’s determination that 42 U.S.C. § 423(h) does not 

provide statutory authority for payment of interim survivor benefits at issue in this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff says that the statute authorizes interim payment of his claim to survivor benefits because 

the Social Security Administration (SSA) previously has determined that he is entitled to disability 

benefits. The plain language of § 423(h), however, indicates that the statute applies in situations 

where an administrative law judge (ALJ) has determined that a claimant is entitled to the 

particular benefits being claimed---here, survivor benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(h)(1). Plaintiff’s

repeated attempts to conflate the survivor benefits at issue with the disability benefits he already 

receives are unpersuasive. Plaintiff points out that, pursuant to this court’s remand order, the SSA

vacated the ALJ’s prior decision denying his claim for survivor benefits. The fact remains, 

however, that an ALJ has not determined that plaintiff is entitled to those benefits, which are the 

only ones at issue in this litigation.

Plaintiff disagrees with the court’s conclusion that, absent explicit statutory authorization, 

district courts cannot use remedial powers to order the Commissioner to pay interim benefits; and, 

he points out that there are other decisions that support his view. This court has already noted that 

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 65 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

courts disagree on that issue and stated its agreement with those that conclude district courts 

cannot use remedial powers to order the Commissioner to pay interim benefits. Plaintiff has not 

persuaded the court that its prior decision warrants reconsideration.

Plaintiff surmises that this court has conspired with defendant to deny his requests for 

interim payment of survivor benefits. He believes this is so because this court’s prior orders cite 

decisions that were not cited by defendant. To the contrary, this court simply reviewed and 

considered plaintiff’s arguments, researched the law, and concluded that the law does not support 

his request for payment of interim benefits.

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 65 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

5:13-cv-03504-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Lynn M. Harada Lynn.Harada@ssa.gov, ODAR.OAO.COURT.1@ssa.gov, 

sf.ogc.ndca@ssa.gov

Steven Michael Goldstein GoldyCISSP@hotmail.com

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 65 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 4