Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Alexander Ramirez, representing himself, brought this action under the Social Security Act seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final determination that he was ineligible for supplemental security income benefits. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings. Ramirez did not respond, even after Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses extended his response deadline.

Magistrate Judge Moses recommended granting the Commissioner’s unopposed motion. Neither party objected. On March 16, 2018, the court adopted that recommendation, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and directed the clerk to close the case. Judgment was entered on March 19, 2018, and the clerk mailed the judgment to Ramirez at the address listed in his complaint.

On July 10, 2018, Ramirez filed a motion seeking more time to appeal and a notice of appeal. He said he had not appealed on time because he was homeless and received his mail only when he had an opportunity. He listed the same address that he had used earlier in the case. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely and sent the matter back for this court to consider whether Ramirez’s motion could be treated as a request to reopen the appeal deadline under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6).

Legal standard

Rule 4(a)(6) permits—but does not require—a district court to reopen the time to appeal for 14 days if three conditions are met: the person did not actually receive notice of the judgment within 21 days after it was entered; the request was filed within the rule’s time limits; and reopening would not prejudice another party. The court explained that actual receipt, rather than merely proper mailing, is required for the first condition.

Even when those conditions are satisfied, the court retains discretion to deny reopening. The court may consider whether the person was responsible for failing to receive notice or for delaying the appeal. The court noted that litigants must monitor their cases and inform the court of address changes or other reliable ways to receive case notices, including when they are representing themselves.

Analysis

The court construed Ramirez’s motion as a request to reopen the appeal deadline. It found that the Rule 4(a)(6) conditions were satisfied. The court liberally interpreted Ramirez’s statements to mean that he first received notice of the judgment after the 21-day period and within the relevant filing period. It also found that the Commissioner would not be prejudiced by reopening the deadline.

The court nevertheless denied relief as a matter of discretion. It found that Ramirez’s failure to receive notice was entirely his own fault because he did not update his contact information or provide another way for the court to reach him. The court also emphasized that Ramirez had failed to oppose the Commissioner’s motion, object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, or identify an error in the March 2018 order. The court stated that arguments raised for the first time on appeal would generally be treated as waived.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels denied Ramirez’s motion to reopen the time to appeal. The clerk was directed to close the motion accordingly. This order addressed the late-appeal request; it did not change the earlier order granting the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.