Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03744/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03744-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Defendant
Joseph J. Stanisic
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH J. STANISIC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03744-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR REMAND AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19

Now before the Court are plaintiff’s motion for remand and defendant’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment. Docket Nos. 18, 19. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the 

Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a dispute over the amount of monthly benefits and retroactive lump sum 

benefits owed to a retiree. The full factual and procedural history is laid out in the Court’s order 

granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 16. To summarize, plaintiff initially 

applied for retirement benefits at the age of 72. Administrative Record (“AR”) at 12. He argues 

that by delaying his retirement age, he missed out on retirement benefits totaling approximately 

$30,000. Plaintiff’s Motion at 2-3. 

Following several unsuccessful requests for reconsideration, plaintiff filed a written 

request for a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). AR at 12, 36. On November 

29, 2012, the ALJ ruled that the Social Security Administration properly calculated plaintiff’s 

benefits. Id. at 12-15. Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ’s decision from the Appeals Council, 

and the Appeals Council denied his request on June 12, 2014. Id. at 3-6.

Case 3:14-cv-03744-SI Document 20 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On August 14, 2014, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed his complaint for judicial review of 

the Commissioner’s final decision on his retirement benefits claim. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff also 

brought two counts of negligence against the Commissioner. Id. On June 3, 2015, defendant 

moved to dismiss the negligence claims. Docket No. 10. After granting plaintiff an extension of 

time to oppose, on September 9, 2015, the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and reset 

the filing deadlines in this case. Docket No. 16.

On October 19, 2015, plaintiff filed the instant motion for remand. Docket No. 18. He 

does not ask the Court to review the ALJ’s decision regarding his retirement benefits but rather 

asks that this Court order “a thorough evaluation by the [Appeals Council] of Plaintiff’s 

contention that the annual benefits statement should be revised under Rule No. 4 to advise 

prospective retirees not only how to maximize their benefits, but also how to avoid a loss of 

retirement benefits by filing for benefits after 70 years of age.” Id. at 2. On November 16, 2015, 

defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing, in part, that the Court lacks 

jurisdiction to review the Appeals Council decision because it was not the final agency action in 

this case. Docket No. 19 at 3. Plaintiff filed no reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Social Security Act authorizes judicial review of final decisions made by the 

Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court may enter a judgment affirming, modifying or 

reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing. 

Id. “When the Appeals Council denies a request for review, it is a non-final agency action not 

subject to judicial review because the ALJ's decision becomes the final decision of the 

Commissioner.” Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2011); see 

also 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481. In such situations, courts “may neither affirm nor reverse the Appeals 

Council’s decision.” Taylor, 659 F.3d at 1231. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff does not seek a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the 

Case 3:14-cv-03744-SI Document 20 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

ALJ. Plaintiff’s Motion at 2. He asks instead that the case be remanded to the Appeals Council 

for it to consider amending the annual benefits statement regarding retirement benefits. Id. 

Plaintiff asserts that his case implicates a “broad policy or issue that [may] affect the public 

interest” and thus the Appeals Council should have heard his case. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 

404.970(a)(4). However, where the Appeals Council denied review, as it did here, the Court lacks 

jurisdiction to review the Appeals Council’s determination. See Taylor, 659 F.3d at 1231. 

Plaintiff has not challenged the ALJ’s decision, which is the final agency action in this case, and 

the Court does not have the power to grant the relief that plaintiff seeks. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for remand is DENIED and defendant’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The November 29, 2012 decision of the ALJ 

remains as the final decision in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03744-SI Document 20 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 3