Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02244/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02244-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Louis Latino
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS LATINO, No. 2:11-cv-2244-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 12). Plaintiff filed an opposition

to the motion (Doc. 13), and defendant filed a reply (Doc. 14). 

In social security cases, the United States has waived its sovereign immunity 

and consents to be sued for review of final decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The statute allows suits to be filed “within sixty days after the mailing

to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner may allow . . .

.” Id. Under relevant regulations, the term “mailing” refers to the date of receipt by the

individual of the Appeals Council’s notice of decision, which is presumed to be five days after

1

Case 2:11-cv-02244-CMK Document 16 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 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

the date of the decision, unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.981, 616.1481, 404.901, 416.1401, 422.210(c). The time limit is not jurisdictional but is a

statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling. See Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1276

(9th Cir. 1987) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 323, 328 n. 9 (1976)). Equitable tolling

should only be considered in the most rare of cases and only “where the equities in favor of

tolling the limitations period are so great that deference to the agency’s judgment [as to whether

to extend the limitations period] is inappropriate.” Bowen v. New York, 476 U.S. 467, 480

(quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 330). 

Here, defendant argues plaintiff filed his complaint one day late. Plaintiff’s

counsel acknowledges this action was filed one day beyond the statute of limitations, but

provides the court with an alternate filing date. Counsel’s argument, and the court’s records,

show that counsel filed a complaint on plaintiff’s behalf on August 19, 2011, prior to the

expiration of the statute of limitations. See Latino v. Comm’r, 2:11-at-1185. However, this

action was terminated as no filing fees were received. Counsel indicates he attempted to

electronically file the application to proceed in forma pauperis, but was unable to do so

successfully. Once he obtained assistance, he was able to successfully upload both the complaint

and the application to proceed in forma pauperis and this action commenced on August 23, 2011. 

The court finds it appropriate to accept the original filing date of August 19, 2011. 

Thus, accepting the original filing date, the complaint was filed within the statute of limitations. 

The Clerk of the Court will be directed to update the docket to show the corrected filing date.

Defendant’s motion will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The undersigned finds the original filing date of August 19, 2011, to be the

appropriate filing date;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to show the correct

filing date of the complaint as August 19, 2011;

2

Case 2:11-cv-02244-CMK Document 16 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 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

3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is denied; 

4. Defendant shall file the administrative record and an answer or other

response to the complaint within 45 days of the date of this order; and

5. The remaining dates set forth in the scheduling order (Doc. 6) are adjusted

accordingly and affirmed.

DATED: May 29, 2014

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-02244-CMK Document 16 Filed 05/29/14 Page 3 of 3