Hill v. Social Security Administration

E.D. Arkansas

Hill v. Social Security Administration

DecidedMarch 14, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00304

StatusUnknown

This text of Hill v. Social Security Administration (Hill v. Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION WENDY T. HILL PLAINTIFF

VS. No. 3:22-cv-00304 PSH

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi (“Kijakazi”) moves to dismiss this Social Security case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), alleging that Wendy T. Hill (“Hill”) failed to file this action within the 60 days allowed by the applicable statute of limitations (Doc. No. 5). Hill filed a response to the motion and a motion to extend time (Doc.

Nos. 7 & 8. In her pleadings, Hill asserts that her attorney mailed all case-initiating documents to the Eastern District of Arkansas Jonesboro Divisional Office via the United States Postal Service six days before the deadline for filing. She claims that

good cause exists to excuse the late filing; i.e., six days was a reasonable amount of time for the case-initiating documents to be received by the Clerk’s Office for timely filing. The Court would benefit from a reply from Kijakazi on this issue. Kijakazi is 1 therefore ordered to file a reply to Hill’s response to her motion to dismiss and/or a

response to Hill’s motion to extend time in which she addresses whether Hill’s late filing should be excused for good cause, and ifnot, why. Her response should be filed

no later than March 28, 2023. The Court notes that both parties have submitted attachments in the form of affidavits and documents along with their pleadings. Because it is necessary to review evidence outside the pleadings, Kijakazi’s motion is more appropriately treated as one for summary judgment. See National Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 40 F.3d 698, 707 (Sth Cir.1994) (stating that “[b]ecause the district court was required to review the available evidence ... this motion [to dismiss] is more appropriately treated as one for summary judgment.”). Since the Court is treating the motion as one for summary judgment, the parties are notified of their opportunity to present any additional supporting materials for the Court’s consideration. Any such materials should be filed on or before April 4, 2023. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2023.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION WENDY T. HILL PLAINTIFF

VS. No. 3:22-cv-00304 PSH

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi (“Kijakazi”) moves to dismiss this Social Security case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), alleging that Wendy T. Hill (“Hill”) failed to file this action within the 60 days allowed by the applicable statute of limitations (Doc. No. 5). Hill filed a response to the motion and a motion to extend time (Doc.

Nos. 7 & 8. In her pleadings, Hill asserts that her attorney mailed all case-initiating documents to the Eastern District of Arkansas Jonesboro Divisional Office via the United States Postal Service six days before the deadline for filing. She claims that

good cause exists to excuse the late filing; i.e., six days was a reasonable amount of time for the case-initiating documents to be received by the Clerk’s Office for timely filing. The Court would benefit from a reply from Kijakazi on this issue. Kijakazi is 1 therefore ordered to file a reply to Hill’s response to her motion to dismiss and/or a

response to Hill’s motion to extend time in which she addresses whether Hill’s late filing should be excused for good cause, and ifnot, why. Her response should be filed

no later than March 28, 2023. The Court notes that both parties have submitted attachments in the form of affidavits and documents along with their pleadings. Because it is necessary to review evidence outside the pleadings, Kijakazi’s motion is more appropriately treated as one for summary judgment. See National Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 40 F.3d 698, 707 (Sth Cir.1994) (stating that “[b]ecause the district court was required to review the available evidence ... this motion [to dismiss] is more appropriately treated as one for summary judgment.”). Since the Court is treating the motion as one for summary judgment, the parties are notified of their opportunity to present any additional supporting materials for the Court’s consideration. Any such materials should be filed on or before April 4, 2023. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2023.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hill v. Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-social-security-administration-ared-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack