James C. Gionfriddo, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security

475 F. App'x 732
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMay 10, 2012
Docket11-13336
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 475 F. App'x 732 (James C. Gionfriddo, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James C. Gionfriddo, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 475 F. App'x 732 (11th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On April 8, 2011, James C. Gionfriddo Jr. received notice from the Social Security Administration that it would not review the administrative law judge’s decision to deny him social security benefits. He filed a pro se complaint in federal district court on July 5, 2011, 1 and asked to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim because it found that the complaint had been filed twenty-two days too late. Gionfriddo appeals, proceeding pro se.

We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir.2003). An appli *733 cant for social security benefits has sixty days from receiving notice of a final decision denying his application to seek review of that decision by filing a complaint in federal district court. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). That sixty-day time limit is not jurisdictional but is instead an affirmative defense that can be waived. See Shows v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 740 F.2d 891, 891-92 (11th Cir.1984).

The district court should not have dismissed Gionfriddo’s complaint for failure to state a claim based on its conclusion that the complaint was untimely filed without hearing from the Commissioner, who may waive this affirmative defense. See Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1239 (11th Cir.2010); see also Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(e). “Courts generally lack the ability to raise affirmative defenses themselves.” Latimer, 601 F.3d at 1239.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

1

. The complaint was dated July 5, 2011, but may not have been filed until July 15, 2011. The district court gave Gionfriddo the benefit of the doubt because the difference between the dates did not affect its analysis. We do the same for the same reason.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
475 F. App'x 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-c-gionfriddo-jr-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ca11-2012.