Deabreu v. Berryhill, 2:16-cv-01062

Plaintiff filed DIB and SSI applications on November 17, 2010; ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied review on April 25, 2016, making the ALJ decision final.
Appeals Council notice informed Plaintiff he had 60 days from receipt (presumed 5 days after April 25, 2016) to file a civil action — presumptive deadline June 29, 2016.
Plaintiff filed this district-court complaint on July 11, 2016, 12 days after the presumed deadline.
Defendant moved to dismiss (converted to summary judgment) arguing the suit is time-barred; Defendant submitted the Appeals Council notice and SSA declaration showing no timely extension request.
Plaintiff relied on a July 7, 2016 treating-physician letter describing cognitive and depressive impairments and asserted misunderstanding of filing requirements; he sought equitable tolling based on mental impairment.
Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with prejudice, concluding the complaint is untimely and Plaintiff failed to show extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because of statutory time limit	DeAbreu brought suit; did not explicitly contest jurisdiction	42 U.S.C. §405(g) requires suit within 60 days; failure to timely file bars review	60-day filing rule is a statute of limitations, not jurisdictional; court has jurisdiction but statute of limitations defense is available
Whether Plaintiff’s complaint is time-barred	Filed July 11, 2016 but argued confusion about procedures and submitted medical evidence	Appeals Council notice dated April 25, 2016; presumed received within 5 days; no extension requested; complaint filed after 60-day period	Complaint untimely (filed 12 days late); Defendant met burden showing untimeliness
Whether equitable tolling applies due to mental incompetence	Treating physician opined Plaintiff has attention, memory, executive deficits and depression that interfere with tracking and tasks	Physician’s letter did not show Plaintiff was incapable of understanding rights or acting during the 60-day period; Plaintiff admitted misunderstanding filing process	Equitable tolling denied: Plaintiff failed to show extraordinary circumstances and diligent pursuit required for tolling
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	Plaintiff sought review; no timely cure offered or extension requested	Time-bar and lack of equitable tolling warrant final dismissal	Recommended dismissal with prejudice

Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (1986) (60‑day filing requirement is a statute of limitations, not jurisdictional)
Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1987) (treating §405(g) deadline as statute of limitations)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling applied where expert showed mental impairment precluded understanding and acting)
Brockamp v. United States, 67 F.3d 260 (9th Cir. 1995) (mental incompetence can justify equitable tolling)