Lillian A. Coleman v. Ssi

DLD-20 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-4710
___________
LILLIAN A. COLEMAN,
Appellant
v.
SSI; OFFICE OF HEARING AND APPEALS; JO ANN B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-06629)
District Judge: Honorable J. William Ditter, Jr.
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 18, 2007
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Opinion filed: October 30, 2007)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Lillian Coleman, appeals pro se from the order of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying her motion for reconsideration
from the dismissal of her complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security (the

-- 1 of 4 --

2
“Commissioner”). In her complaint, Coleman, who has been receiving supplemental
security income (“SSI”) for several years, alleges that she is entitled to an additional two
years of benefits. For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm the District
Court’s order. See I.O.P. 10.6.
Coleman first filed for SSI due to disability in January 1997. This application was
denied. Coleman’s next application, however, was granted and she began receiving
benefits in January 1999. Believing that she should have been awarded SSI retroactive to
October 1995, the month in which she became disabled, Coleman appealed the BIA’s
ruling to the District Court. The District Court subsequently remanded the case to the
BIA, which, in turn, remanded it to an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Upon review,
the ALJ granted Coleman additional benefits retroactive to the month of her first
application, January 1997, but not retroactive to the date of her injury, 1995. See 20
C.F.R. § 416.335.
Still insisting that she was entitled to benefits retroactive to October 1, 1995,
Coleman commenced the present action in the District Court. By order dated May 16,
2006, the District Court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss on the ground that
benefits cannot be awarded for any month prior to the month in which the claimant filed
her first application. See id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.310; 416.315 (providing that SSI benefits
are not payable for any month before the month in which the applicant files her first
application, even if she became disabled prior to that time).
On June 1, 2006, Coleman filed an unspecified motion for reconsideration in the

-- 2 of 4 --

1 The Commissioner has filed a motion to dismiss Coleman’s appeal on the ground
that the District Court correctly concluded that she was not entitled to benefits retroactive
to 1995. We will construe this as a motion for summary affirmance pursuant to Third
Circuit LAR 27.4.
3
District Court alleging that she had in fact filed applications in 1995 and 1996. As a
result, the District Court ordered the Commissioner to conduct another search of her
records to ensure that no such applications were received. After conducting an exhaustive
search, the Commissioner certified to the Court that there was no record of Coleman
filing an application prior to January 1997. Accordingly, the District Court denied
Coleman’s motion for reconsideration on October 3, 2006. This appeal followed.1
We first address the issue of our jurisdiction. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), Coleman was required to file her notice of appeal within
30 days after entry of the District Court’s final order. Here, Coleman did not file a notice
of appeal until nearly six months after the District Court dismissed her complaint.
Although a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60
will toll the time for filing a notice of appeal if it is filed within 10 days of entry of the
order, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), Coleman did not file her motion for reconsideration
until 11 days after the District Court dismissed the complaint. Therefore, we lack
jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint. We do,
however, have authority to review the District Court’s denial of Coleman’s motion for
reconsideration. Although Coleman did not specify whether her motion was brought
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), we believe the motion may be

-- 3 of 4 --

construed as one filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). See Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201,
209 (3d Cir. 2002) (stating that when a motion is “filed outside of the ten days provided
for under Rule 59(e) but within the year permitted under Rule 60(b), and the motion may
be read to include grounds cognizable under the latter rule, we will consider it to have
been filed a Rule 60(b) motion”). We review the District Court’s determination under
Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion. See id.
The District Court correctly denied Coleman’s motion for reconsideration. In the
motion, Coleman reiterated her argument that she had in fact filed applications for SSI
benefits in 1995 and 1996. Despite her insistence, however, the Commissioner verified to
the District Court that no such applications are on record. Given that Coleman failed to
present the District Court with any evidence to the contrary, the Court properly denied her
motion.
Accordingly, as there is no substantial question presented by this appeal, we will
summarily affirm. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. In light of our disposition, the
Commissioner’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
4

-- 4 of 4 --