Michael David Ingraham v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL DAVID INGRAHAM, No. 2:24-CV-3670-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial 19 review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 20 Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding 21 judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending 22 before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 10. Plaintiff has filed an 23 opposition. See ECF No. 19. Defendant has not filed a reply. 24 The parties do not dispute the procedural history of this case, which is 25 summarized briefly here. Plaintiff appeared before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for a 26 hearing on his disability application on April 16, 2021. See ECF No. 10-2 (ALJ hearing 27 decision). Plaintiff was represented by attorney Jeffrey L. Milam during proceedings before the 28 agency. See id. On August 19, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision determining that 1 Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See id. In September 2 2024, Plaintiff’s current counsel, attorney Jacqueline A. Forslund, agreed to accept Plaintiff’s 3 case for an action for judicial review of the August 19, 2024, decision. See ECF No. 19-1 4 (Forslund declaration). Plaintiff’s complaint in this action was filed on December 21, 2024. See 5 ECF No. 1. 6 Defendant argues that this action must be dismissed because Plaintiff’s complaint 7 was not filed within 60 days after the August 19, 2024, ALJ decision became final, as required 8 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See ECF No. 10. Here, the parties agree that the 60-day time limit 9 expired on December 20, 2024, and that Plaintiff filed his complaint one day late on December 10 21, 2024. In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that the time limit for filing his complaint should be 11 equitably tolled due to extraordinary circumstances. See ECF No. 19. 12 The 60-day time limit is not jurisdictional and constitutes a statute of limitations 13 on filing an action for judicial review. See Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir. 14 1987); see also Matlock v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1990). The deadline for seeking 15 judicial review is subject to equitable tolling. See Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 16 480 (1986). To be entitled to equitable tolling of the 60-day time limit, the plaintiff must show 17 that he has been diligent in pursuing his rights and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in 18 the way of a timely filing. See id. at 480-81. 19 In this case, the record demonstrates, and Defendant does not argue to the 20 contrary, that Plaintiff diligently pursued his rights by seeking representation within a month of 21 the ALJ’s unfavorable August 19, 2024, decision. See ECF No. 19-1 (Forslund declaration). 22 The record also demonstrates that, shortly after accepting Plaintiff’s case in September 2024, 23 Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Forslund, began experiencing various mental and physical health issues 24 which prevented her from filing Plaintiff’s complaint by the December 20, 2024, deadline. See 25 id. These issues are outlined in Ms. Forslund’s declaration, are of a personal nature, and are not 26 detailed here. The Court has reviewed the issues outlined by Ms. Forslund and finds that they 27 presented an impairment beyond Plaintiff’s control to the timely filing of this action. As such, 28 Plaintiff is entitled to a one-day equitable tolling of the 60-day period to seek judicial review. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is denied. 3 2. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on December 21, 2024, is deemed timely. 4 3. Defendant shall file and serve the certified administrative record within 60 5 || days of the date of this order. 6 4. Plaintiff's opening brief is due within 30 days after the date of service of 7 || the certified administrative record. 8 5. Defendant’s answering brief is due within 30 days of the date of service of 9 | Plaintiff's opening brief. 10 6. Plaintiff may file a reply brief within 14 days after the date of service of 11 || Defendant’s answering brief. 12 13 Dated: January 30, 2026 Ss..c0_, M4 DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28