Tortice v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Harry Ricky Tortice,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-08224-PCT-JJT (MTM)
ORDER
Mr. Harry Tortice, appearing in pro se, filed a Complaint for Review of a Social
Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income Decision on October 10, 2025. (Doc.
1.) Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15, “R&R”) entered
by United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey recommending that the Court
dismiss the matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Mr. Tortice timely filed a
submission that the Court has treated as an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 16).
First, while Mr. Tortice used a form identifying his complaint as one seeking review
of a social security disability determination—a proceeding with which this Court is quite
familiar as it is the subject of many cases brought here—the substance of his complaint, to
the extent the Court can comprehend it, is not a disability benefits decision appeal. Rather,
the gravamen of Mr. Tortice’s complaint appears to be a tort involving violation of his
privacy rights. He complains that the Social Security Administration has assembled a panel
“to start an investigation into [his] daily living,” for an unidentified purpose, and “installed
a video camera with audio recordings” through which Mr. Tortice apparently alleges the
Case 3:25-cv-08224-JJT Document 17 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
panel has been “watching [him] defecate, urinate and altogether all of my daily functions
were recorded.” (Doc. 1 at 5.)
A pro se litigant’s use of the wrong form or his incorrect labeling of a complaint,
while requiring the Court and any defendants greater time and effort to comprehend, is not
necessarily fatal, and was not the basis for Judge Morrissey’s recommendation of
dismissal. Rather, after Judge Morrissey advised the parties of the deadlines and
procedures in this matter and of the consequences for failing to heed them, Plaintiff failed
to file a brief for requested relief, as Judge Morrissey’s December 29, 2025 Scheduling
Order required him to do. Then, after Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13),
Plaintiff failed to respond to that motion as required under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, either timely or at all. The R&R notes that if Plaintiff will not engage to advance
the matter for resolution as required by the terms of the Scheduling Order, and after
warning, the Court must dispose of it. Judge Morrissey recommends dismissal without
prejudice, meaning Plaintiff is not precluded from raising his claims in the future, when he
is prepared to do so.
Mr. Tortice responded to the R&R, noting he lives in a nursing home, does not have
independence of movement, requires a chaperone to leave the home to conduct his
business, and is unable to buy stamps and envelopes to communicate with others in a
reliable manner. He asks for time to “try to gather evidence on the three ladies who were
empaneled by the Commissioner.” (Doc. 16.)
The Court will adopt Judge Morrissey’s recommendation and dismiss the matter
without prejudice. Mr. Tortice acknowledges in his Objection that he is not yet prepared to
present his claims and needs time to investigate them before he can state them in
conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Dismissal without prejudice will allow him to attempt
to bring those claims in a new action once he is able to meet the requirements of the Rules.
IT IS ORDERED adopting the R&R (Doc. 15) in this matter and dismissing the
Complaint (Doc. 1) and this matter without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close the
matter.
Case 3:25-cv-08224-JJT Document 17 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13).
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2026.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-08224-JJT Document 17 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3