Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02470/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02470-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner Social Security
Appellee
Luz E. Gonzalez
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-2470

___________

LUZ E. GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-15-cv-02131)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon, Jr.

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 1, 2016

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and GARTH♦, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 26, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 ♦ The Honorable Leonard I. Garth joined in the opinion of the Court but passed away 

prior to the filing of the opinion.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

Case: 16-2470 Document: 003112445076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2016
2

Luz E. Gonzalez appeals the District Court’s order granting a motion to dismiss 

filed by the Commissioner of Social Security in an action involving a claim for disability 

insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). For the reasons below, 

we will affirm the District Court’s order.

In 2012, Gonzalez protectively filed an application for DIB and SSI under Titles II 

and XVI of the Social Security Act. Her application was denied at the initial level of 

administrative review. Gonzalez appealed, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

concluded that she was not disabled. Thereafter, the Appeals Council denied Gonzalez’s 

request for review. In May 2015, Gonzalez sought review in the United States District 

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The District Court issued a Standing 

Practice Order in Social Security Appeals, which states, in relevant part, that “[w]ithin 

forty-five (45) days after service of the defendant’s answer, the plaintiff shall serve and 

file a brief containing the following: statement of the case, statement of errors, argument 

and conclusion.” The Order also provides that “failure of the plaintiff to comply with 

[those requirements] will result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and abide 

by a court order . . . without any further warning from the court.” The Commissioner 

filed an answer on July 7, 2015, but Gonzalez did not file a brief. Consequently, the 

District Court dismissed the action by order entered October 30, 2015, because Gonzalez 

 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-2470 Document: 003112445076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2016
3

failed to timely file her supporting brief as required by the Standing Practice Order. 

Gonzalez did not appeal.

Gonzalez filed another action in the District Court against the Commissioner in 

November 2015, again complaining about the denial of her requests for DIB and SSI. 

The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), arguing that Gonzalez’s action was barred by res judicata. The District Court 

agreed, granted the Commissioner’s 12(b)(6) motion, and dismissed the action. Gonzalez 

timely appealed.1

Res judicata bars claims that were actually litigated or could have been litigated in 

the prior action. See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981). 

For res judicata to apply, a defendant must show that there has been “(1) a final judgment 

on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a 

subsequent suit based on the same causes of action.” United States v. Athlone Indus., 

Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 983 (3d Cir. 1984). The Commissioner has demonstrated that all 

three requirements are met here. First, Gonzalez’s prior action was dismissed for failure 

to prosecute, which constitutes a decision “on the merits.” Napier v. Thirty or More 

Unidentified Fed. Agents, 855 F.2d 1080, 1087 (3d Cir. 1988). Second, Gonzalez named 

the Commissioner both here and in the prior action. Finally, the present action and the 

 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo the District 

Court’s dismissal on res judicata grounds. Morgan v. Covington Twp., 648 F.3d 172, 

177 (3d Cir. 2011).

Case: 16-2470 Document: 003112445076 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2016
4

prior suit both arise from the same denial of Gonzalez’s request for DIB and SSI. 

Gonzalez has not attempted to distinguish the causes of action. Under these 

circumstances, we conclude that res judicata bars Gonzalez’s claims.

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

Case: 16-2470 Document: 003112445076 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/26/2016