Calderon-Lopez v. Saul
| Decision Date | 25 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-cv-1851 (KBJ),19-cv-1851 (KBJ) |
| Parties | RICARDO JOSE CALDERON-LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Pro se Plaintiff Ricardo Calderon-Lopez is a former recipient of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2-3.)2 In 2013, the Social Security Administration ("SSA") determined that Calderon-Lopez was no longer eligible for disability insurance benefits (see Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20-1, at 9), and when Calderon-Lopez subsequently failed to appear at a hearing he requested, the assigned Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") dismissed his hearing request (see Ex. 9 to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20-1, at 54-55). Calderon-Lopez then proceeded to the SSA's Appeals Council, where he unsuccessfully appealed the ALJ's decision (see Ex. 11 to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20-1, at 57), and in 2016, he filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking judicial review of the SSA's decision toterminate his benefits (see Ex. 12 to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20-1, at 60-62). The Northern District of California dismissed Calderon-Lopez's case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (id. at 63-64), and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision in 2018 (Ex. 13 to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20-1, at 65-66).
Calderon-Lopez then filed the instant action against the Commissioner of Social Security, requesting reinstatement of his disability insurance benefits. (See Compl. at 7-8.) In his complaint, Calderon-Lopez alleges that the SSA unlawfully terminated his benefits (id. at 3-4), and that the ALJ and various court officials have "affect[ed] the framework of [his] case" by committing fraud, failing to follow applicable regulations, and conspiring to violate his constitutional rights (id. at 4, 6-8; see also Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 21, at 9-11).
This Court referred this matter for random assignment to a Magistrate Judge, for full case management, on August 19, 2019. (See Min. Order of Aug. 19, 2019.) After the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey (see Min. Entry of Aug. 19, 2019), the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Calderon-Lopez's complaint is barred by res judicata; that the complaint is untimely; and that the complaint's factual allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief (see Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, at 1, 5-8).
Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that Magistrate Judge Harvey filed regarding the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. (See R. & R., ECF No. 23.)3 The Report and Recommendation reflects Magistrate Judge Harvey'sopinion that the Commissioner's motion should be granted, for three main reasons. First, Magistrate Judge Harvey concludes that Calderon-Lopez's request for review of the SSA's decision is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion, because the District Court for the Northern District of California actually and necessarily determined that Calderon-Lopez had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies below, and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the agency's decision as a consequence. (Id. at 8.) Magistrate Judge Harvey further finds that allowing preclusion in this case would not "'work a basic unfairness' on [Calderon-Lopez]" (id. at 9 (quoting Martin v. Dep't of Just., 488 F.3d 446, 454 (D.C. Cir. 2007))), because Calderon-Lopez had "the incentive and opportunity" to contest the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction in the proceedings before the Northern District of California (id. at 10; see also id. at 9 ()).
Second, Magistrate Judge Harvey finds that Calderon-Lopez's challenge to the ALJ's decision is time-barred under the Social Security Act's 60-day statute of limitations. (See id. at 11 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c)).) Specifically, based on his review of the administrative record in this case, Magistrate Judge Harvey observes that Calderon-Lopez's complaint was filed at least 172 days after the Appeals Council denied Calderon-Lopez's request for review of the ALJ's decision, meaning that his complaint was at least 112 days late. (See id. at 12 ().)
Finally, to the extent that Calderon-Lopez asserts claims against "various governmental officials" for their allegedly unconstitutional conduct (id.), Magistrate Judge Harvey concludes that those claims must be dismissed, because such officials "are not defendants in this case[,]" and Calderon-Lopez's claims against them are too vague and conclusory to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (see id. at 13).
In addition to articulating these findings and conclusions, Magistrate Judge Harvey's Report and Recommendation also advises the parties that they may file written objections to the Report and Recommendation, which must "identify the portion of the report and/or recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for such objections." (Id.) The Report and Recommendation further advises the parties that failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of "their right of appeal from an order of the District Court that adopts such findings and recommendation." (Id. at 13-14.) Under this Court's local rules, any party who objects to a Report and Recommendation must file a written objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party's receipt of the Report and Recommendation. LCvR 72.3(b). The due date for objections has passed, and none have been filed.
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Harvey's report and agrees with its careful and thorough analysis and conclusions. Thus, the Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, as set forth in the separate Order that accompanies this Memorandum Opinion, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) will be GRANTED.
DATE: May 25, 2021
/s/_________
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge
Appendix A
RICARDO JOSE CALDERÓN LÓPEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Case No. 19-cv-1851 (KBJ/GMH)
Plaintiff Ricardo Jose Calderón López, who proceeds pro se, filed this action against the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or the "Commissioner") asking this Court to reinstate his disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Defendant seeks dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on grounds of res judicata, untimeliness, and failure to plead facts sufficient to state a claim.4 For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion should be granted.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was awarded benefits under the Social Security Act in 2002.6 ECF No. 1 at 2. In November 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from the Social Security Administration ("SSA") stating that he was no longer eligible for disability insurance benefits as of the beginning of that month. Id. at 3, 10. Plaintiff asked the SSA to reconsider that determination by filing, as directed, the "Request for Reconsideration" form attached to the letter. ECF No. 21 at 7; ECF No. 21-1 at 14, 17-22. The request was denied in March 2014. ECF No. 21-2 at 10. Plaintiff sought review by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and a hearing was scheduled for August 26, 2015. ECF No. 20-1 at 22, 29-34, 42-47. The ALJ dismissed the claim on that date because Plaintiff failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. ECF No. 1 at 3; ECF No. 20-1 at 54-55; ECF No. 21-1 at 6-7. Plaintiff requested review of the dismissal from the Appeals Council in September 2015. ECF No. 20-1 at 56; see also ECF No. 1 at 4 n.6, 12. The Appeals Counsel ultimately denied Plaintiff's request for review on February 2, 2016. ECF No. 20-1 at 57-58.
In May 2016, Plaintiff filed an action in the United State District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the denial of his request for review. ECF No. 1 at 3-4; see alsoCalderon Lopez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-cv-2732, 2016 WL 7406641 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016). In its December 2016 decision, that court noted that, in order to secure a final, appealable decision from the Commissioner, a plaintiff must "complet[e] the four steps of the administrative process: (1) an initial determination; (2) reconsideration; (3) a hearing before an ALJ; and (4) review by the Appeals Council." Calderon Lopez, 2016 WL 7406641, at *2. It further found that Plaintiff waived his right to a hearing before an ALJ when he failed to attend the hearing scheduled in his case and therefore did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at *3. Consequently, the court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Id. (). In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court; the Supreme Court thereafter denied Plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari. Calderon-Lopez v. Berryhill, 747 F. App'x 569, 570 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1563 (2019).
On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this District. It is labeled a "Complaint to Re-open SSA file" and seeks an order "to expedite reinstatement" of Plaintiff's disability insurance benefits, alleging that the decision denying his request for...
To continue reading
Request your trial