Williams v. Berryhill
| Decision Date | 08 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-02221-JCM-PAL |
| Parties | TASHEONA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter involves Plaintiff Tasheona Williams' appeal and request for judicial review of the final decision by Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"), denying Williams' claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33, and claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83. Ms. Williams is proceeding in this social security appeal pro se and in forma pauperis. Screening Order (ECF No. 3).
Before the court is the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18). This motion is referred to the undersigned magistrate judge to prepare a report of findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4 of the Local Rules of Practice. The court has considered the Commissioner's motion, Williams' Response (ECF No. 18), and the Reply (ECF No. 19). For the reasons explained, the court recommends the motion be granted.
The following procedural facts are undisputed. On January 13, 2016, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued a decision finding Williams not disabled. Mot. Ex. 1 (ECF No. 16-1). Ms. Williams requested review of the decision by the Appeals Council, but the ALJ's decision became final when the Appeals Council denied review. Mot. Ex. 2, Notice of Appeals Council Action. The Appeals Council informed Williams that she had "60 days to file a civil action (ask for court review)." Id. Id. The letter is dated February 2, 2017, and therefore her deadline to file a civil action was April 9, 2017.
On March 3, 2017, Williams timely requested an extension of time to file a civil action from the Appeals Council. In a letter dated July 10, 2017, the Appeals Council granted her a 30-day extension. Mot. Ex. 3 (the "Notice"). The Notice states:
The Appeals Council now extends the time within which you may file a civil action (ask for court review) for 30 days from the date you receive this letter. We assume that you received this letter 5 days after the date on it unless you show us that you did not receive it within the 5-day period.
If you have any questions, you may call, write, or visit any Social Security Office. Id. The extension and time for mailing explained in the Notice, extended the time for Williams to file her complaint for judicial review to August 14, 2017. The Notice extended the original April deadline by more than four months.
Ms. Williams commenced this case on August 21, 2017, by filing an IFP application (ECF No. 1) and proposed complaint. The court reviewed the complaint and determined that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Aug. 25, 2017 Screening Order (ECF No. 3). Williams alleged that her case was not handled nor reviewed properly. The court found that the complaint merely alleged the ALJ's decision to deny benefits was wrong but failed to indicate why it was wrong. The court dismissed the complaint based on this pleading deficiency but granted her leave to amend by September 27, 2017. The court also noted it was unable to determine whether Ms. Williams had timely commenced this action because the complaint did not state whether she requested review by the Appeals Council.
Williams timely requested an extension from the court to file her amended pleading. Sept. 19, 2017 Mot. Extend Time (ECF No. 5). The court granted her request and extended the deadline to amend until November 13, 2017. Order (ECF No. 7).
Ms. Williams filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) on November 13, 2017. The amended pleading asserts that the original complaint was "filed timely, but was dismissed without prejudice" to allow her to file an amended complaint. Am. Compl. ¶ 2 n.1. The court screened the amended complaint and found that Williams exhausted her administrative remedies but did not timely file this action:
Ms. Williams has not alleged that she requested or received an extension of time from the Commissioner to file a civil action in federal court. The order dismissing the original complaint without prejudice did not extend the 65-day statutory deadline. See Screening Order (ECF No. 3). That order was entered well after the 65-day deadline had expired, although the court was unaware at that time because the complaint did not state that the Appeals Council denied Ms. Williams' request for review on February 2, 2017. The court gave her until September 27, 2017, to correct the noted deficiencies and file an amended complaint. The deadline was extended into mid-November at Williams's request. See Order (ECF No. 7). Because the 60-day limitations period is not a jurisdictional bar, the court will screen the Amended Complaint. However, this screening for the purposes of § 1915 is not a finding that the action was timely commenced or that equitable tolling applies.
Nov. 28, 2017 Screening Order (ECF No. 9). Despite the timing issue, the court determined that Williams' amended complaint cured the pleading deficiency and stated a claim for initial screening purposes. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to issue summons to the Commissioner.
Following service of the amended complaint, the Commissioner filed the current motion.
The Commissioner's motion argues that Ms. Williams was required to file a civil action on or before August 14, 2017, based on the extension granted in the Notice. She did not file this lawsuit until August 21, 2017, seven days after the deadline. Because this action was not timely commenced, judicial review is time-barred. In addition, no special circumstances justify tolling the statute of limitations. In support of the motion, the Commissioner attaches the declaration of Nancy Chung, Chief of Court Case Preparation and Review Branch 1 of the Office of Appellate Operations. Mot. Exs. (ECF No. 16-1), Chung Decl.
In her Opposition (ECF No. 18), Ms. Williams acknowledges that this action was not timely filed. However, she argues she received the Notice by mail long after the five days presumed under the regulations, and she has good cause for the minor delay in filing her complaint. She has intended to pursue her appellate rights at all times after the ALJ's adverse decision. Id.at 7, Pl's Decl. ¶ 1. Williams states that her grandmother died in May 2017. Id. at 8, ¶ 6. Williams' grandmother bought Williams a ticket to fly to Chicago, Illinois, on June 10, 2017, but her grandmother passed away prior to the scheduled visit. Id. ¶ 8. The family delayed the memorial service until June to allow Williams to attend. Id. ¶ 9. She claims she returned home and received the Notice on July 31, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 10-11.
Ms. Williams recognizes that the Notice is dated July 10, 2017. Id. at 7, ¶ 2. However, she states that, when she read the Notice on July 31, 2017, "I assumed I had 30 days to file my complaint." Id. at 8, ¶ 11. Citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.911(a)(2), she alleges she "was misled by the Notice." Id. at 8 n.5. As a result of her misunderstanding, Williams believed she had until August 31, 2017, to file her complaint, and therefore filed on August 21. Id. ¶ 12.
Ms. Williams further asserts she has "good cause to extend the statute of limitations meeting the stringent requirements under the doctrine of equitable estoppel." Opp'n at 3. Williams claims she has good cause for her "filing delay of 7 days," despite her failure to seek an additional extension of time from the Appeals Council, because she always thought her filing was timely and she did not receive the Notice until July 31, 2017. She asserts she has significant physical, mental, and emotional limitations that prevented her from fully understanding the Notice, including an inability to concentrate. Id. at 10, Pl's Decl. ¶ 23. This is "the likely reason I may have misunderstood the actual notice I received and its time requirements." Id.
Williams avers she has experienced multiple extraordinary circumstances that justify equitable tolling and excuse her late filing. She is a single mother of a 16-year old daughter. Id. at 9, ¶ 16. Her grandmother's unpredictable death took her and her daughter away from home for over a month. Opp'n at 5. There was no one available to monitor her mail. Id. at 9, Pl's Decl. ¶ 18. Williams' food stamp and medical assistance were suspended while she was in Chicago, which upon her return required her to spend "more than half a day" using public transportation to go to the welfare office and reactivate her food stamp eligibility. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. Williams contacted numerous lawyers seeking assistance, but her efforts failed. Id. at 8-9, ¶¶ 13-14. Despite significant limitations affecting her ability to concentrate, she researched how to file a complaint. Id. at 9, ¶¶ 14-15. Williams maintains she used her "best efforts" to comply with the Notice whilejuggling her "obligations as a parent" and "need for benefits and medical assistance." Id. at 10, ¶ 22. She argues she has demonstrated diligence "at all stages of this proceeding," and therefore deserves the court's indulgence to excuse her late pro se filing. Opp'n at 5. Thus, she asks the court to deny the Commissioner's motion.
The Reply (ECF No. 19) points out that Ms. Williams concedes her complaint was not timely filed. She contends that "good cause" and/or equitable tolling excuses the late filing. However, the Commissioner asserts that Williams has not shown that "the equities in favor of tolling the limitations...
To continue reading
Request your trial