Rainsford v. SSA Commissioner

Background

The Commissioner of Social Security moved to dismiss Edmund Rainsford’s action. Rainsford was representing himself and did not file an opposition by the initial May 20, 2025 deadline. He later requested more time, citing illness and mail-service problems. The court granted the request and set a June 17, 2025 deadline, which it later reiterated. Rainsford still did not file an opposition.

The Commissioner argued that Rainsford’s action was filed too late to challenge a Merit Systems Protection Board decision involving a discrimination claim. The Commissioner relied on a certificate of service stating that the decision was served at an email address registered with the Board on February 23, 2024. The Commissioner argued that the thirty-day deadline under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) therefore expired on March 25, 2025, while Rainsford filed his complaint on March 26, 2025.

Failure to Oppose

The court declined to dismiss the case solely because Rainsford failed to file an opposition. The court noted that the Northern District of California has no local rule treating the failure to oppose a motion as consent to granting it. It also hesitated to impose dismissal as a severe sanction based only on a disabled self-represented plaintiff’s missed briefing deadline. The court nevertheless ordered Rainsford to show cause why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the court’s orders, and failure to oppose the Commissioner’s motion.

Filing Deadline and Motion Procedure

The Commissioner’s motion cited both Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court concluded that the thirty-day deadline in § 7703(b)(2) is not jurisdictional. It reasoned that the Supreme Court had held that a similarly worded deadline in § 7703(b)(1) was not jurisdictional and that there was no reason to treat the deadline in § 7703(b)(2) differently. The court therefore stated that a motion based on failure to meet the § 7703(b)(2) deadline must proceed under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).

Because Rule 12(b)(6) review is generally limited to the complaint and certain materials incorporated into it or subject to judicial notice, the court declined to consider the certificate of service as proof of when and how service occurred. The complaint referred to the Board’s decision but did not refer to the certificate of service, so the court found that incorporation by reference did not apply. The court also rejected the proposed use of judicial notice to accept the factual truth of the service information.

Under Rule 12(d), a court may treat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as one for summary judgment when outside materials are presented, provided the parties receive a reasonable opportunity to respond. The court converted the Commissioner’s motion to a summary-judgment motion only for the limited purpose of deciding whether Rainsford filed the complaint on time. It ordered Rainsford to show cause why summary judgment should not be granted on that issue and allowed him to submit evidence or legal argument concerning the filing deadline.

Order and Current Status

The court did not decide the Commissioner’s other arguments for dismissal. Those arguments remained pending, and Rainsford was ordered to respond to each of them. The court ordered Rainsford to respond by August 13, 2025. It continued the previously scheduled hearing to September 4, 2025, by videoconference. The order warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal with prejudice, but it did not itself dismiss the case or grant summary judgment.