SIMON v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PHILLIP WALTER SIMON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 3452 (LLA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 5, 2025, the court dismissed Plaintiff Phillip Walter Simon’s pro se action
against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and the Office of Child Support
Enforcement.1 ECF No. 31. Mr. Simon now seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), ECF No. 32, an order certifying a constitutional question pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2403, ECF No. 33, and sanctions, ECF No. 39. Defendants have filed a motion for an
extension of time to respond to Mr. Simon’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 40, which
Mr. Simon opposes, ECF No. 41. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny
Mr. Simon’s motions and deny Defendants’ motion as moot.
1 Mr. Simon named as Defendant the “Office of Child Support Enforcement,” a subcomponent of
HHS that was renamed the Office of Child Support Services in 2023. ECF No. 11, at 1 n.1; see
U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Off. of Child Support Servs., Name Change to Office of Child
Support Services, https://perma.cc/JR48-P5UJ. The court will thus refer to this Defendant as the
Office of Child Support Services.
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 8

2
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The court recounts the facts as described in its previous memorandum opinion. ECF
No. 30. The Social Security Act generally protects Social Security benefits, which are
administered by the SSA, from “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.”
42 U.S.C. § 407(a). Veterans’ benefits are administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(“VA”) and are also exempt from “attachment, levy, or seizure.” 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1).
However, as relevant here, “[t]he United States has made itself subject to state-authorized
garnishment proceedings . . . for the enforcement of child-support obligations” under 42 U.S.C.
§ 659. El-Amin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-2209, 2023 WL 7123775, at *4 (3d Cir. Oct. 30,
2023) (per curiam); see 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii)(I); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1820 (2025).
Mr. Simon is a veteran who was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army in 2013. ECF
No. 1, at 5; see ECF No. 2-1 ¶ 2; ECF No. 22, at 20-21, 23.2 In 2017, the VA rated Mr. Simon as
“100% disabled,” ECF No. 2-1 ¶ 4, which means that he is “considered to be totally and
permanently disabled due solely to [his] service-connected disabilities,” ECF No. 22, at 23.
Mr. Simon receives $2,108.40 in monthly Social Security disability benefits, ECF No. 22 at 14,
and $5,122.47 in monthly disability compensation from the VA, id. at 28; see ECF No. 2-2, at 7.
2 When citing Mr. Simon’s filings, the court uses the page numbers generated by CM/ECF, rather
than any internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 8

3
As part of family court proceedings in the Superior Court of California, Mr. Simon was
ordered to pay $500 per month to support his three minor children.3 Ex. A at 4-5, Simon v. Cumba,
No. 25-CV-107 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025), ECF No. 10-2; see Watts-Simon v. Simon,
No. 21FL004274N (Cal. Sup. Ct.); Compl. ¶ 5, Simon v. Cumba, No. 25-CV-107
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025), ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 26, at 10-19 (various motions filed by
Mr. Simon in the child support proceedings), 27-31 (Superior Court of California commissioner’s
findings regarding child support). In June 2025, the County of San Diego Department of Child
Support Services (“DCSS”) sent an income withholding order to the SSA’s Benefits Office for
San Diego, instructing the office to “[d]educt a portion of the benefits otherwise payable to [the]
Social Security beneficiary” in the amount of $700 per month—$500 for current child support and
$200 for past-due child support. ECF No. 11-1, at 1-4.
On July 31, 2025, the SSA sent Mr. Simon a letter notifying him that it “ha[d] been ordered
to take $700.00 from each monthly payment . . . to pay [his] obligation for child support, alimony
or court ordered victim restitution” in connection with “court order number 200000002737095.”
ECF No. 22, at 17; see ECF No. 11-1, at 3 (income withholding order with case ID number
200000002737095). The SSA advised Mr. Simon that if he “disagree[d] with the decision of the
court that issued the garnishment order,” he should contact the court that issued the order. ECF
No. 22, at 17.
3 Mr. Simon has filed multiple federal suits challenging the dissolution of his marriage and his
child support obligations, each of which has been dismissed. See Simon v. Washington,
No. 25-CV-109 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025), ECF No. 13, appeal dismissed, No. 25-2159 (9th Cir.
July 17, 2025), ECF No. 14 (dismissing appeal as frivolous); Simon v. Cumba, No. 25-CV-107
(S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025), ECF No. 23, appeal docketed, No. 25-1727 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2025);
Simon v. Bostic, No. 24-CV-1665 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025), ECF No. 52, appeal dismissed,
No. 25-2164 (9th Cir. July 17, 2025), ECF No. 15 (dismissing appeal as frivolous); Simon v.
Superior Ct. of Cal., No. 23-CV-889 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2024), ECF No. 19.
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 8

4
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 2025, Mr. Simon filed this action alleging that Defendants are unlawfully
garnishing his “VA disability benefits . . . , which are protected from levy, garnishment, and
seizure under . . . 38 U.S.C. § 5301” and that Defendants have “failed to correct or halt reliance on
[his] false classification” as a “retired” veteran. ECF No. 1, at 5. He also filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 2. Over the following month,
Mr. Simon filed several supplemental submissions in support of his motion. ECF Nos. 4, 5, 8.
In October 2025, Defendants filed a combined opposition to the motion for injunctive relief
and motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. ECF
Nos. 10, 11. Mr. Simon filed a reply in support of his motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 12,
and an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22. Defendants also filed a notice
regarding the lapse of appropriations, ECF No. 18, which Mr. Simon opposed, ECF No. 20. In
response, the court ordered that Defendants need not file any additional responses. See Oct. 20,
2025 Minute Order. Mr. Simon filed additional motions and notices seeking various forms of
relief. ECF Nos. 13 to 17, 19, 23 to 29.
On November 5, 2025, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed
Mr. Simon’s pending motions as moot, and dismissed the action. ECF Nos. 30, 31. The court
concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Simon’s garnishment-related claims
because 42 U.S.C. § 659 “enacts an absolute shield to government liability for payments made
‘pursuant to legal process regular on its face.’” El-Amin, 2023 WL 7123775, at *4 (quoting United
States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 834-36 (1984)); see ECF No. 30, at 7-12. The court also dismissed
Mr. Simon’s claims challenging the DOJ’s failure to act on his complaints for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 30, at 14-15. The court then dismissed Mr. Simon’s claims
alleging that Defendants did not correct his military classification for failure to state a claim. Id.
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 8

5
at 15-16. The same day, Mr. Simon filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
Rule 60(d)(3) based on fraud on the court, ECF No. 32, and a motion to certify constitutional
questions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403, ECF No. 33. Also on November 5, Mr. Simon filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, ECF No. 34, and, the following
day, he filed two supplemental declarations in support of his motions, ECF Nos. 36, 37. The D.C.
Circuit has held the appeal in abeyance pending this court’s resolution of Mr. Simon’s
Rule 60 motion. Order, Simon v. Social Sec. Admin., No. 25-5397 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 6, 2025).
Mr. Simon also filed a motion for sanctions in December 2025. ECF No. 39. Defendants
filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Mr. Simon’s reconsideration motion, ECF
No. 40, which Mr. Simon opposed, ECF No. 41.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 60(d)(3) provides that a court has the power “to set aside a judgment for fraud on the
court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). “Fraud on the court . . . is directed to the judicial machinery itself
and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.” Willett
v. Pompeo, 640 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Baltia Air Lines,
Inc. v. Transaction Mgmt., Inc., 98 F.3d 640, 642 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). Relief under Rule 60(d)(3) is
“very rarely warranted, and is ‘typically confined to the most egregious cases, such as bribery of
a judge or a juror, or improper influence exerted on the court by an attorney, in which the integrity
of the court and its ability to function impartially is directly impinged.’” More v. Lew, 34 F. Supp.
3d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 675 F.2d
1349, 1356 (4th Cir. 1982)). The party alleging fraud on the court “must present ‘clear and
convincing evidence.’” Willett, 640 F. Supp. 3d at 9 (quoting Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos., 62
F.3d 1469, 1477 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 8

6
IV. DISCUSSION
Mr. Simon fails to meet the “extraordinarily high standard” for showing fraud on the court.
Stonehill v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 06-CV-599, 2024 WL 4679128, at *4 (D.D.C. Nov. 5,
2024). Mr. Simon first argues that Defendants’ counsel “knowingly submitted” to the court a
“fabricated and jurisdictionally void” Income Withholding Order (“IWO”) as part of a “deliberate
scheme to mislead the Court.” ECF No. 32, at 1-3 (emphases omitted); see ECF No. 36, at 1-3;
ECF No. 37, at 1-4. He points to a later version of the IWO signed by a different DCSS
representative as an example of an “administrative reproduction[] fabricated by child-support
enforcement staff acting without jurisdiction or authority.” ECF No. 37, at 1. However, the court
has already rejected Mr. Simon’s arguments that the IWO was defective and that the commissioner
who issued his child support order lacked jurisdiction over him, see ECF No. 30, at 11-12, and
Mr. Simon’s new assertion that his current DCSS case manager recently re-issued an identical
version of the IWO does not suggest fraud. In any event, as noted, fraudulent documents and false
statements are considered fraud “between the parties,” not fraud “directed to the judicial machinery
itself.” Willett, 640 F. Supp. 3d at 9 (quoting Baltia Air Lines, 98 F.3d at 642). Accordingly, even
assuming Mr. Simon’s allegations are true, he still fails to establish fraud on the court. See
Stonehill, 2024 WL 4679128, at *4 (denying a Rule 60(d)(3) motion where the plaintiff alleged
that the defendant and its attorneys submitted false declarations).
Mr. Simon further argues that Defendants’ counsel “knowingly misrepresented [him] as a
‘military retiree’” and omitted documents showing the administrative complaints he had
previously filed with Defendants. ECF No. 32, at 3. He contends that Defendants’ fraud
“prevented the Court from performing its constitutional duty to enforce 38 U.S.C. § 5301 and
due-process protections.” Id. at 4. These arguments, too, fail to establish fraud. Mr. Simon does
not present any evidence that Defendants’ counsel “knowingly misrepresented” facts to the court,
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 6 of 8

7
id. at 3-4, let alone that counsel exerted “improper influence” on the court, More, 34 F. Supp. 3d
at 28 (quoting Great Coastal Express, 675 F.2d at 1356), akin to bribery of a judge or knowing
participation in the presentation of perjured testimony, see Baltia Air Lines, 98 F.3d at 643.
Similarly, Defendants’ counsel’s alleged “omission” of potentially relevant materials, ECF No. 32,
at 3, is not sufficient to establish fraud, see Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 968 F.
Supp. 2d 176, 184 (D.D.C. 2013), aff’d, No. 13-5294, 2014 WL 2178705 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 25, 2014)
(per curiam) (“[T]he mere fact that the government did not tell the court everything it knew about
[the plaintiff’s] claims . . . does not mean that there was fraud on the court.”).4
Mr. Simon’s remaining arguments merely reflect his disagreement with the court’s
decision and do not justify relief from judgment. See ECF No. 32, at 3-4 (arguing that Defendants
“conceal[ed]” jurisdictional issues in his state-court proceedings); ECF No. 36, at 2-4 (arguing that
the court has jurisdiction over his garnishment-related claims and erred in dismissing his other
motions as moot); ECF No. 37, at 3-4 (arguing that the court ignored statutory and constitutional
violations). Rule 60(d)(3) does not provide a vehicle for relitigating the merits of a plaintiff’s
claims, and Mr. Simon “cannot assert fraud or fraud on the court simply because he disagrees with
the rulings of this Court.” Jordan v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 331 F.R.D. 444, 452 (D.D.C. 2019), aff’d,
4 For similar reasons, the court also denies Mr. Simon’s motion for sanctions, ECF No. 39, which
alleges that Defendants’ counsel knowingly made false representations and submitted “fabricated
state forms” to the court, id. at 3-6. “Rule 11 sanctions are an extreme punishment for filing
pleadings that frustrate judicial proceedings,” Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 873 F. Supp.
2d 388, 408 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Wasserman v. Rodacker, No. 06-CV-1005, 2007 WL
2071649, at *7 (D.D.C. July 18, 2007)), and Mr. Simon has not provided any evidence supporting
his accusations, let alone any evidence warranting the extreme punishment of sanctions.
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 7 of 8

8
No. 19-5201, 2020 WL 283003 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2020) (per curiam). The court will therefore
deny Mr. Simon’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3).5
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Simon’s Motion for Relief
from Judgment, ECF No. 32, Motion to Certify Constitutional Questions, ECF No. 33, and Motion
for Sanctions, ECF No. 39, are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Extension of Time, ECF No. 40, is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: December 5, 2025
5 Mr. Simon also requests that the court certify to the U.S. Attorney General that this case draws
into question the constitutionality of an act of Congress affecting the public interest pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). ECF No. 33. Section 2403(a) requires certification only when “the United
States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party” to the suit. Here, regardless of
whether this case raises a constitutional question, certification is not required because Defendants
are agencies of the United States.
Case 1:25-cv-03452-LLA Document 42 Filed 12/05/25 Page 8 of 8