Case Name: Charles L. BOBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-21
Citations: 570 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 13-35099
Parties: Charles L. BOBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 570
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
Charles L. BOBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-35099.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2014.
Filed April 21, 2014.
Charles L. Bobo, pro se.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kerry Keefe, Esquire, Office of the U.S-. Attorney, Richard A. Morris, Esquire, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOULD, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Bobo appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment which dismissed as time-barred his complaint challenging the Commissioner of Social Security's decision which granted his application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act but declined to reopen earlier disability applications. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal as untimely of a complaint seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner. Banta v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1991).
The district court did not err in dismissing Bobo's complaint as untimely. Bobo filed his complaint approximately seven months after the sixty-day limitations period had expired. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c). He is not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The dismissal for failure to prosecute of his earlier, timely-filed district court action was caused by his failure to comply with the court's order to file an amended complaint. That earlier dismissal does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control that made it impossible for him to seek review of the Commissioner's decision. See Banta, 925 F.2d at 345; Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir.1999) (discussing tolling of Title VII statute of limitations).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.