Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03789-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
John Coleman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The case is now assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

2

 Court filings in this order are identified by their docket number on the Electronic Case

Filing (“ECF”) docket sheet. 

ORDER (C 08-03789 LB)

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

JOHN COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-03789 LB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MANDAMUS PETITION TO

ENFORCE JUDGMENT AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S FED. R.

CIV. P. 60(B) MOTION AS MOOT

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 7, 2009, Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil1

 granted in part Plaintiff John

Coleman’s pro se motion for summary judgment, finding that he was disabled and remanding the

case to the Social Security Administration “for the AWARD of [Supplemental Security Income

(“SSI”)] benefits earned during the period from July 27, 2004, to August 3, 2005.” ECF No. 33 at

16.2

 By letter filed January 13, 2010, Plaintiff alleged that by paying benefits as of March 1, 2005

(instead of July 27, 2004), the Social Security Administration did not comply with Judge Brazil’s

order. ECF No. 38. Following the Court’s construal of the letter as a mandamus petition to enforce

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 59 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 4
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

3

 The Social Security Administration does not contest jurisdiction. In any event, a federal

court has “inherent power to enforce its judgments.” Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996). 

ORDER (C 08-03789 LB) 2

the judgment, see ECF No. 40,3

 Defendant Social Security Administration (1) responded that the

Social Security Act permitted payment of benefits only as of March 1, 2005, and (2) asked the Court

to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to provide for payment of

benefits only as of March 1, 2005. ECF Nos. 46, 47. 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s petition and dismisses Defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion as moot.

Judge Brazil’s order directs only the payment of benefits “earned during the period from July 27,

2004, to August 3, 2005.” Plaintiff was entitled to payment of benefits only as of March 1, 2005, 

the first day of the month following February 17, 2005, the protective filing date of his application

for benefits. Payment of benefits as of March 1, 2005, is payment of the benefits “earned” during

the disability period and thus is consistent with the relief that Judge Brazil ordered. 

II. ADDITIONAL FACTS

The administrative record establishes, and the parties do not dispute, that Plaintiff filed his

written application for disability benefits on March 3, 2005, and that his protective filing date (often

the date of an applicant’s earlier oral or written inquiry for benefits) is February 17, 2005. Order on

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 33 at 1; Declaration of Ella Battle, Program

Analyst (“Battle Declaration”), ECF No. 47-1 at ¶ 5; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.340, 416.345. 

III. DISCUSSION

An SSI claimant is disabled if (1) he suffers from a “medically determinable physical or

mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected

to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months,” and (2) the “impairment or

impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot,

considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful

work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A) & (B). Judge Brazil

previously held that Plaintiff met both statutory requirements for disability. See ECF No. 33. In

particular, Judge Brazil determined that Plaintiff was disabled from July 27, 2004, to August 3,

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 59 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 4
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER (C 08-03789 LB) 3

2005, thereby meeting the requirement that Plaintiff be disabled for a continuous period of not less

than twelve months. See id.

If a claimant – like Plaintiff – is disabled for a continuous period of not less than twelve

months, he is eligible for payment of benefits the first day of the month following the date he files

his application for benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(c)(7)(a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.202(g), 416.501,

416.335; see, e.g., Bracken v. Astrue, No. C 07-764, 2009 WL 542214, at *6 n.6 (C.D. Cal. March.

3, 2009); Collins v. Astrue, No. C 08-5092, 2009 WL 112863, at *14 n.5 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 14,

2009). If a claimant makes an oral or written inquiry about SSI benefits before filing a formal

written application, the Social Security Administration uses the date of the earlier inquiry as the

filing date. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.340, 416.345. The Social Security Administration refers to this

earlier date as the “protective filing date.” Battle Declaration, ECF No. 47-1 at ¶ 5. 

Plaintiff’s protective filing date is February 17, 2005. See id. The first day of the month

following that date – and the first date Plaintiff was entitled to benefits under the statutes and

regulations – was March 1, 2005. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382(c)(7)(a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.501, 416.335. 

Plaintiff argues that Judge Brazil ordered payment of benefits effective July 27, 2004. That

was not Judge Brazil’s order. He remanded the case to the Social Security Administration “for the

AWARD of benefits earned during the period from July 27, 2004, to August 3, 2005.” ECF No. 33

at 16 (emphasis added). A claimant cannot “earn” benefits until he applies for them. The

application date here is February 17, 2005, which resulted in the payment of SSI benefits to Plaintiff

effective March 1, 2005, through August 3, 2005. Awarding benefits for that period is an award of

the “benefits earned during the period from July 27, 2004, to August 3, 2005,” and the Social

Security Administration thus complied with Judge Brazil’s order. See id. (emphasis added).

IV. PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS AND ARGUMENT

 Judge Brazil also remanded the case for further proceedings regarding Plaintiff’s eligibility

for SSI benefits after August 3, 2005. See ECF No. 33 at 18. Plaintiff discussed those proceedings

in supplemental filings, see, e.g., ECF No. 56, and at oral argument. The Court lacks jurisdiction in

this case to consider any decisions about payment of benefits after August, 3, 2005. Instead, judicial

review is appropriate only after a timely appeal of any final decision by the Commissioner.

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 59 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 4
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER (C 08-03789 LB) 4

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

V. CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s mandamus petition and DISMISSES AS MOOT

Defendant’s Rule 60(b) Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2010 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:08-cv-03789-LB Document 59 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 4