Court Opinion

ID: 9402676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 16:01:02.651418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:01.788246
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 16 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL OSORNIO,                                  No.   21-16306

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:19-cv-08267-GMS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Arizona
                 G. Murray Snow, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted June 16, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Angel Osornio appeals from the District Court’s summary judgment holding

that her complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security was untimely.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to

explain our decision.

      Any individual may commence a civil action within sixty days of the mailing

to her of notice of the Commissioner’s final decision or within such further time as

the Commissioner may allow. 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Osornio does not dispute that she

failed to commence a civil action within the sixty-day deadline. She also did not

request an extension to the sixty-day period.

      The District Court correctly declined to apply equitable tolling. “[A] litigant

seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he

has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance

stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Osornio failed

to demonstrate she pursued her rights diligently. Osornio does not dispute that she

received an Appeals Council letter informing her of the sixty-day deadline to file a

complaint in the District Court or request an extension. Despite this, Osornio failed

to file her complaint within the proscribed period. Furthermore, there is no evidence

that some extraordinary obstacle stood in her way preventing her from asserting her

rights. See 544 U.S. at 418.1

       AFFIRMED.

1
  Osornio’s motion to expedite settlement, Docket No. 16, and supplemental motion
to expedite settlement, Docket no. 17, are DENIED.

                                         2