Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03073/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03073-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

The Complaint was not actually filed until December 4, 2006, after the Magistrate 1

Judge had ruled that plaintiff was entitled to in forma pauperis status. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

MARK A. NEAL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-3073

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 21st day of February, 2008, comes on for

consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation

(document #7), and plaintiff's Response And Objection To

Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation (document #8), and

from said documents, and the supporting documentation, the Court

finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint seeking review of an adverse

decision on his Social Security claim was filed outside of the

sixty-day period set by 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for seeking judicial

review of such decisions. 

Defendant moved for dismissal, alleging that the Complaint

was not timely. The Magistrate Judge recommended that dismissal

be granted, reporting that although plaintiff had until November

19, 2006, to file his Complaint, it was not received in the

Clerk's Office until November 24, 2006.1

In reviewing Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's

Case 3:06-cv-03073-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/21/08 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Complaint, the Magistrate Judge was persuaded by two things: (1)

although plaintiff requested an extension of the filing time, he

did so by facsimile rather than mail; and (2) there is no evidence

that any extension was granted. 

2. Plaintiff objects to dismissal. He admits that his

attorney received notice of the Appeals Council's action on

September 20, 2006, although he personally did not receive it

because he was incarcerated. He states (albeit not by way of

affidavit) that his attorney both mailed and faxed a timely

request to the Appeals Council for additional time to file his

Complaint, giving as the reason for such extension that he was

incarcerated. He further states - or rather, his attorney on his

behalf states - that paperwork was sent to his mother "in order to

hopefully get the Plaintiff's signature on the papers indicating

that he was and is indigent and does want to continue his appeal

efforts since the undersigned's attempts to get papers to him

while incarcerated were futile since nothing was ever received

from him directly."

While admitting that no response was received to the request

for extension, plaintiff further states - or rather, his attorney

states - that he has "mailed many times requests for additional

time" to the Appeals Council and has "never received any responses

from the Appeals Council approving or disapproving the requests."

(Emphasis in original). He contends that the Court should find

Case 3:06-cv-03073-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

that his Complaint was timely filed "as there was good cause for

the extension and the Appeals Council can not stand by and fail to

respond either way to such a request when timely made."

3. Plaintiff's argument is basically that this Court should

equitably toll a statute of limitations which the defendant has

determined not to toll. The Supreme Court has recognized that

"[w]hile in most cases the Secretary will make the determination

whether it is proper to extend the period within which review must

be sought, cases may arise where the equities in favor of tolling

the limitations period are 'so great that deference to the

agency's judgment is inappropriate'." Bowen v. City of New York,

476 U.S. 467, 480 (1986). In the Eighth Circuit, however,

equitable tolling has been used "only sparingly." See Medellin v.

Shalala, 23 F.3d 199, 204 (8th Cir. 1994), citing Irwin v.

Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990):

We have allowed equitable tolling in situations where

the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies

by filing a defective pleading during the statutory

period, or where the complainant has been induced or

tricked by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the

filing deadline to pass. We have generally been much

less forgiving in receiving late filings where the

claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving

his legal rights.

(Emphasis in the Eighth Circuit citation).

The Court does not find this case to be one where there are

equities sufficient to override the Secretary's decision not to

toll the limitations period. The Court can accept plaintiff's

Case 3:06-cv-03073-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/21/08 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

statements that his counsel timely requested an extension of time

to file, and that the reason given therefor - his incarceration -

was a good one. It can also accept the notion that facsimile

transmission satisfies the requirement of a written request for

such extension. What the Court cannot accept is the contention

that it should treat such extension as granted in the absence of

any showing that such is the case. 

The Notice Of Appeals Council Action attached to defendant's

motion to dismiss states, with regard to requests for extension,

that "[w]e will send you a letter telling you whether your request

for more time has been granted." Plaintiff admits that no such

letter was received. Earnest Baskerville, Chief of Court Case

Preparation and Review Branch 3 of the Office of Appellate

Operations, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, avers in

a sworn declaration that he is responsible for processing Social

Security claims when civil actions thereon are filed in the State

of Arkansas, and has plaintiff's file in his custody. He further

avers that an examination of the file "under his supervision" does

not reflect any request for extension.

These facts suggest that no request for extension was ever

received in the appropriate office, and that no extension was ever

granted. The only "equity" offered to balance them is the

assertion that defendant "never" sends the promised letter

regarding a request for extension. The Court is not persuaded

Case 3:06-cv-03073-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/21/08 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

that, even if this situation obtains, it amounts to a "trick" that

would have "deceived" the plaintiff. Plaintiff's counsel could

certainly have contacted defendant to inquire about the status of

any request for an extension, and if he had failed to receive

either a response or an extension, he could have protectively

filed a complaint on his client's behalf in a timely fashion. 

4. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the

Report And Recommendation is sound in all respects, and should be

adopted in toto, and that the Objections thereto should be

overruled.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report

And Recommendation is adopted in toto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Response And Objection

To Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation (document #8) is

overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Dismiss

Plaintiff's Complaint (document #5) is granted, and this matter is

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03073-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/21/08 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>