Tompson v. Kijakazi, No. 4:2020cv05135 - Document 23 (E.D. Wash. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER Granting, In Part, 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding for Additional Proceedings. Granting 21 Motion to Remand. Signed by Magistrate Judge James A. Goeke. (MO, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tompson v. Kijakazi Doc. 23 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 1 Mar 28, 2022 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 JAMIE T., 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 11 12 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,1 13 14 15 No. 4:20-CV-5135-JAG ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING FOR ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS Defendant. BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 16 No. 18, and Defendant’s Motion for Remand, ECF No. 21. Attorney Chad L. 17 Hatfield represents Jamie T. (Plaintiff); Special Assistant United States Attorney 18 David J. Burdett represents the Commissioner of Social Security (Defendant). The 19 parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 5. After 20 reviewing the administrative record and the briefs filed by the parties, the Court 21 GRANTS, IN PART, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTS 22 Defendant’s Motion for Remand; and REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner 23 for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 24 25 1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on 26 July 9, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 27 Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew M. Saul as the defendant in this suit. No 28 further action need be taken to continue this suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 1 Dockets.Justia.com JURISDICTION 1 2 Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income in July 2017 3 alleging disability since March 3, 2010, due to anxiety, depression, adjustment 4 disorder, personality disorder, unknown substance abuse, and learning disabilities. 5 Tr. 165. The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. 6 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mark Kim held a hearing on September 20, 2019, 7 Tr. 32-62, and issued an unfavorable decision on December 26, 2019, Tr. 15-26. 8 The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on June 9, 2020. 9 Tr. 1-6. The ALJ’s October 2019 decision thus became the final decision of the 10 Commissioner, which is appealable to the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11 § 405(g). Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on August 10, 2020. 12 ECF No. 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS 13 Plaintiff was born on May 10, 1992, and was 25 years old on the disability 14 15 application date, July 6, 2017, Tr. 24. He completed the tenth grade in high school 16 and has not earned a GED. Tr. 39, 166. He has past work as a corn detassler on a 17 farm and as a restaurant hostess. Tr. 166. 18 Plaintiff’s disability report indicates he stopped working on September 1, 19 2012, because of his conditions and due to poor work performance. Tr. 165. At 20 the administrative hearing, Plaintiff testified mental health symptoms made it 21 difficult for him to work. Tr. 40. He stated it was difficult for him to 22 focus/concentrate and keep up with the work. Tr. 40-41. He also related he had 23 difficulty correctly following instructions. Tr. 47. Plaintiff testified he lived with his aunt and, other than the chore of taking 24 25 out the trash, his aunt performed all household tasks. Tr. 42. Plaintiff testified he 26 stopped using cannabis in 2017 and he would consume two alcoholic drinks once a 27 week. Tr. 40. 28 /// ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 2 1 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in 3 medical testimony, and resolving ambiguities. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 4 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). The ALJ’s determinations of law are reviewed de novo, with 5 deference to a reasonable interpretation of the applicable statutes. McNatt v. Apfel, 6 201 F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000). The decision of the ALJ may be reversed 7 only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error. 8 Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is 9 defined as being more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id. at 10 1098. Put another way, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 11 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. 12 Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one 13 rational interpretation, the Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the 14 ALJ. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1097; Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 15 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). If substantial evidence supports the 16 administrative findings, or if conflicting evidence supports a finding of either 17 disability or non-disability, the ALJ’s determination is conclusive. Sprague v. 18 Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1229-1230 (9th Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, a decision 19 supported by substantial evidence will be set aside if the proper legal standards 20 were not applied in weighing the evidence and making the decision. Brawner v. 21 Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 22 23 SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process 24 for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a); Bowen v. 25 Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987). In steps one through four, the claimant has 26 the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability by showing that severe 27 impairments prevent the performance of past relevant work. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 28 1098-1099. Once the claimant establishes a prima facie case, the ALJ proceeds to ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 3 1 step five, and the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show (1) the claimant can 2 make an adjustment to other work and (2) the claimant can perform specific jobs 3 that exist in the national economy. Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 4 F.3d 1190, 1193-1194 (9th Cir. 2004). If a claimant cannot make an adjustment to 5 other work in the national economy, the claimant will be found disabled. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION 6 7 8 9 10 On December 26, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 6, 2017, the disability application date. Tr. 17. 11 At step two, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following severe 12 impairments: cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, depressive disorder, 13 anxiety disorder, personality disorder, and specific learning disorder(s). Tr. 17. 14 At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or 15 combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of 16 the listed impairments. Tr. 17. 17 The ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) and found 18 Plaintiff could perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with the 19 following non-exertional limitations: he is limited to simple, routine tasks with a 20 reasoning level of 3 or less with only occasional and simple changes in the work 21 setting and no interaction with the public and only superficial interaction with 22 coworkers. Tr. 20. 23 At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no past relevant work. Tr. 24. 24 At step five, the ALJ determined that, based on the testimony of the 25 vocational expert, and considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and 26 RFC, Plaintiff was capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that 27 exists in significant numbers in the national economy, including the jobs of laundry 28 worker, automobile detailer, and floor waxer. Tr. 24-25. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 4 1 The ALJ thus concluded Plaintiff was not under a disability within the 2 meaning of the Social Security Act at any time from July 6, 2017, the date the 3 disability application was filed, through the date of the ALJ’s decision, December 4 26, 2019. Tr. 26. ISSUES 5 The question presented is whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 6 7 decision denying benefits and, if so, whether that decision is based on proper legal 8 standards. Plaintiff raises the following issues for the Court’s review: (1) Did the ALJ 9 10 err in improperly rejecting the opinions of Plaintiff’s medical providers?; (2) Did 11 the ALJ err by failing to conduct an adequate analysis at step three and failing to 12 find Plaintiff disabled as meeting or equaling a Listing?; and (3) Did the ALJ err in 13 failing to meet his burden at step five? ECF No. 18 at 5-6. DISCUSSION 14 Defendant does not contest Plaintiff’s assertions regarding the alleged errors 15 16 in this matter. Defendant agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ erred in this case but 17 asserts that further proceedings are required to determine whether Plaintiff’s 18 substance abuse is material to a finding of disability. ECF No. 21 at 3. Plaintiff 19 did not file a reply brief. 20 A. 21 Medical Opinion Evidence Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred by rejecting the opinions of Plaintiff’s medical 22 providers. ECF No. 18 at 8-15. Plaintiff specifically asserts the ALJ erred by 23 failing to provide specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the opinions of 24 David T. Morgan, Ph.D., N.K. Marks, Ph.D., and Aaron Burdge, Ph.D. Id. 25 For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, new regulations apply that 26 change the framework for how an ALJ must weigh medical opinion evidence. 27 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 2017 WL 28 168819, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c. The new ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 5 1 regulations provide the ALJ will no longer give any specific evidentiary weight to 2 medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings, including those from 3 treating medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a). Instead, the ALJ will consider 4 the persuasiveness of each medical opinion and prior administrative medical 5 finding, regardless of whether the medical source is an acceptable medical source. 6 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(c). The ALJ is required to consider multiple factors, 7 including supportability, consistency, the source’s relationship with the claimant, 8 any specialization of the source, and other factors (such as the source’s familiarity 9 with other evidence in the file or an understanding of Social Security’s disability 10 program). Id. The regulations make clear that the supportability and consistency 11 of the opinion are the most important factors, and the ALJ must articulate how he 12 considered those factors in determining the persuasiveness of each medical opinion 13 or prior administrative medical finding. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(b). 14 1. David T. Morgan, Ph.D. 15 On April 11, 2019, psychologist David T. Morgan, Ph.D., reviewed records, 16 examined Plaintiff, and completed a Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation form. 17 Tr. 320-324. Dr. Morgan noted Plaintiff did not report a history of substance abuse 18 or chemical dependency, Tr. 321, and he consequently found substance abuse had 19 no effect on Plaintiff’s basic work activities, Tr. 322. Dr. Morgan indicated 20 Plaintiff spends his days sitting around the house, watching television, playing 21 video games, and sleeping. Tr. 321. He diagnosed Unspecified Anxiety Disorder 22 and Unspecified Personality Disorder, Tr. 321, and opined that Plaintiff had 23 several “marked” limitations on basic work activities, Tr. 322. 24 The ALJ found the opinion of Dr. Morgan was not persuasive. Tr. 24. He 25 held the assessment was based on Plaintiff’s subjective reports during a one-time 26 visit and did not address Plaintiff’s substance use. Tr. 24. He further found a 27 review of the evaluation report did not comport with such extreme limitations, Dr. 28 Morgan estimated the duration of Plaintiff’s limitations was only nine months, and ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 6 1 Dr. Morgan indicated vocational training and services would minimize or eliminate 2 barriers to employment. Tr. 24. 3 Plaintiff’s briefing effectively challenges each of the ALJ’s reasons for 4 finding Dr. Morgan unpersuasive, see ECF No. 18 at 9-12, and Defendant does not 5 contest Plaintiff’s argument in this regard, see Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. 6 Country Fin’l Corp., 802 F.Supp.2d 1125, 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (finding “[i]n 7 most circumstances, failure to respond in an opposition brief to an argument put 8 forward in an opening brief constitutes waiver or abandonment in regard to the 9 uncontested issue”); Jenkins v. County of Riverside, 398 F.3d 1093, 1095 n.4 (9th 10 Cir. 2005) (finding a party abandons claims by not raising them in opposition to a 11 motion for summary judgment). Moreover, the Court finds the ALJ failed to 12 adequately evaluate Dr. Morgan’s report in terms of consistency and 13 supportability, as required by the regulations. The ALJ’s analysis as to Dr. Morgan is not supported by substantial 14 15 evidence. 16 2. N.K. Marks, Ph.D., and Aaron Burdge, Ph.D. 17 On April 28, 2017, N.K. Marks, Ph.D., reviewed records, interviewed 18 Plaintiff, and completed a Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation form. Tr. 260- 19 265. Dr. Marks noted Plaintiff reported “he drank and earlier reported that he used 20 drugs” but it was indicated Plaintiff was currently clean and sober, Tr. 261, and his 21 impairments were not the result of alcohol or drug use, Tr. 263. Dr. Marks 22 nevertheless recommended a chemical dependency assessment or treatment. Tr. 23 263. 24 Dr. Marks diagnosed Unspecified anxiety disorder; Unspecified depressive 25 disorder; Unspecified other (or unknown) substance-related disorder; Unspecified 26 adjustment disorder; Unspecified personality disorder by history; Specific learning 27 disorder, with impairment in mathematics; Specific learning disorder, with 28 impairment in reading; and Specific learning disorder, with impairment in written ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 7 1 expression, Tr. 262, and opined that Plaintiff had several “marked” limitations on 2 basic work activities, Tr. 262-263. 3 On May 15, 2017, Aaron Burdge, Ph.D., a record reviewing practitioner 4 with the Department of Social and Health Services, concurred with Dr. Marks’ 5 findings, noting several marked mental limitations and that alcohol or drug 6 abuse/addiction did not primarily affect Plaintiff’s work activity. Tr. 257-259. The ALJ found the opinions of Drs. Marks and Burdge were not particularly 7 8 persuasive. Tr. 23-24. He indicated the assessments did not take into account 9 Plaintiff’s substance use, the duration of Plaintiff’s limitations was noted as 12 10 months, and it was indicated vocational training and services would minimize or 11 eliminate Plaintiff’s barriers to employment. Tr. 24. The ALJ also stated the 12 DSHS assessment forms provided limited information and were based on different 13 standards for evaluating functional capacities and disabilities. Tr. 24. Plaintiff sufficiently challenges each of the ALJ’s reasons for finding the 14 15 reports of Drs. Marks and Burdge unpersuasive, see ECF No. 18 at 12-15, and 16 Defendant did not contest Plaintiff’s briefing as to Drs. Marks and Burdge. The 17 Court also finds the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate the medical professionals’ 18 reports in terms of consistency and supportability, as required by the regulations. The ALJ’s decision with respect to the 2017 reports of Drs. Marks and 19 20 Burdge is not supported by substantial evidence. 21 B. DAA As Defendant has not challenged the substance of Plaintiff’s opening brief, it 22 23 is apparent Defendant concedes the ALJ erred in this case, ECF No. 21, and the 24 Court has so determined, supra. However, Defendant contends a remand for 25 further proceedings is necessary for an ALJ to reconsider the evidence and 26 testimony and determine whether Plaintiff’s substance abuse is material to a 27 finding of disability. Id. Defendant asserts it is unclear at this stage whether, if 28 /// ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 8 1 Plaintiff were to be found disabled, ongoing drug abuse and/or alcoholism 2 contributes to his disability. ECF No. 21 at 5. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 3 The Social Security Act bars payment of benefits when drug addiction 4 and/or alcoholism (DAA) is a contributing factor material to a disability claim. 42 5 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(C), 1382c(a)(3)(J); Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240, 1245 6 (9th Cir. 1998). When there is medical evidence of substance abuse, the ALJ must 7 conduct a DAA analysis and determine whether DAA is a material factor 8 contributing to the disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535(a), 416.935(a). In order to 9 determine whether DAA is a material factor contributing to the disability, the ALJ 10 must evaluate which of the current physical and mental limitations would remain if 11 the claimant stopped using drugs or alcohol, then determine whether any or all of 12 the remaining limitations would be disabling. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535(b)(2), 13 416.935(b)(2). If the remaining limitations without DAA would still be disabling, 14 then the claimant’s drug addiction or alcoholism is not a contributing factor 15 material to his disability. If the remaining limitations would not be disabling 16 without DAA, then the claimant’s substance abuse is material and benefits must be 17 denied. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 747-748 (9th Cir. 2007). “The claimant 18 bears the burden of proving that drug or alcohol addiction is not a contributing 19 factor material to his disability.” Id. at 748. 20 Social Security Ruling (SSR) 13-2p, 2013 WL 621536, provides guidance 21 for evaluating whether a claimant’s substance use is material to the disability 22 determination.2 It instructs adjudicators to “apply the appropriate sequential 23 24 2 Although SSRs do not have the force of law, they “constitute Social 25 Security Administration interpretations of the statute it administers and of its own 26 regulations,” and are given deference “unless they are plainly erroneous or 27 inconsistent with the Act or regulations.” Han v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1457 (9th 28 Cir. 1989). ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 9 1 evaluation process twice. First, apply the sequential process to show how the 2 claimant is disabled. Then, apply the sequential evaluation process a second time 3 to document materiality.” Id. at *6. SSR 13-2p provides that the key factor to 4 examine in determining whether DAA is a contributing factor material to the 5 disability determination is whether the claimant would still be found disabled if he 6 stopped using drugs or alcohol. SSR 13-2p, 2013 WL 621536 at *4. The ALJ 7 must project the severity of a claimant’s other impairments in the absence of DAA, 8 and, in making this determination, the ALJ should consider medical judgments 9 about the likely remaining medical findings and functional limitations the claimant 10 would have in the absence of DAA. Id. at *7, *9. SSR 13-2p indicates that in 11 cases involving physical impairments, an ALJ may consider medical source 12 opinions about the likely effects that abstinence from drugs or alcohol would have 13 on the claimant’s impairments; however, in cases involving mental impairments, 14 the ALJ may not consider such predictions. SSR 13-2p, 2013 WL 621536 at *8, 15 n.19. 16 SSR 13-2p states that “[m]any people with DAA have co-occurring mental 17 disorders; that is, a mental disorder(s) diagnosed by an acceptable medical source 18 in addition to their DAA. We do not know of any research data that we can use to 19 predict reliably that any given claimant’s co-occurring mental disorder would 20 improve, or the extent to which it would improve, if the claimant were to stop 21 using drugs or alcohol.” Id. at *9. “To support a finding that DAA is material, we 22 must have evidence in the case record that establishes that a claimant with a co- 23 occurring mental disorder(s) would not be disabled in the absence of DAA.” Id. 24 While ALJs may seek assistance from medical experts in interpreting the medical 25 evidence regarding the separate effects of treatment for DAA and a co-occurring 26 mental disorder, SSR 13-2p, 2013 WL 621536 n.28, an ALJ may not rely 27 exclusively on medical expertise and the nature of a claimant’s mental disorder to 28 determine whether DAA is material, SSR 13-2p, 2013 WL 621536 at *9. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 10 1 Although the Court finds the ALJ erred with respect to his consideration of 2 the medical opinion evidence, see supra, it is not clear whether Plaintiff’s mental 3 impairments would prevent him from performing substantial gainful employment 4 in the absence of DAA. The Court thus agrees with Defendant that further 5 proceedings are necessary to conduct an adequate analysis consistent with the 6 guidance provided by SSR 13-2p. On remand, the ALJ shall reconsider the 7 medical evidence, including the opinions noted in Section A above, reevaluate 8 Plaintiff’s testimony, and apply the sequential process to determine whether 9 Plaintiff is disabled. If the ALJ finds that Plaintiff is disabled, the ALJ shall then 10 apply the sequential evaluation process a second time to document materiality. 11 C. 12 Steps Three and Five Plaintiff’s brief also contends the ALJ erred at step three by failing to find 13 Plaintiff disabled as meeting or equaling a Listing and at step five by relying on an 14 incomplete hypothetical to the vocational expert. ECF No. 18 at 16-21. Defendant 15 did not specifically challenge or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s step three or step 16 five arguments. 17 Given the errors of the ALJ noted above, the Court has determined that 18 further proceedings are necessary for a proper determination to be made. Supra. 19 On remand, the ALJ shall additionally reexamine step three of the sequential 20 evaluation process and specifically address Listings 12.03, 12.04, 12.05, 12.06, 21 12.08, and 12.11. The ALJ shall reassess Plaintiff’s RFC and, if necessary, obtain 22 supplemental testimony from a vocational expert with respect to the new RFC 23 determination. 24 CONCLUSION 25 Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and remanded for an 26 award of benefits or, alternatively, for additional proceedings. ECF No. 18 at 21. 27 The Court has the discretion to remand the case for additional evidence and 28 findings or to award benefits. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1292. The Court may award ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 11 1 benefits if the record is fully developed and further administrative proceedings 2 would serve no useful purpose. Id. Remand is appropriate when additional 3 administrative proceedings could remedy defects. Rodriguez v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 4 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds further development is necessary 5 for a proper determination to be made. As discussed above, the ALJ erred by improperly assessing the opinions of 6 7 Drs. Morgan, Marks and Burdge. Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ shall 8 reevaluate each of the medical opinions of record, specifically addressing the 9 persuasiveness of each in compliance with the new regulations. The ALJ may 10 consider developing the record further by directing Plaintiff to undergo a 11 consultative psychological examination, preferably with a medical professional 12 who specializes in individuals who have substance use disorders or dual diagnoses 13 of substance use disorders and co-occurring mental disorders. See SSR 13-2p, 14 2013 WL 621536 at *11. The ALJ shall also reevaluate Plaintiff’s testimony, take 15 into consideration any additional evidence presented, and make findings at each of 16 the five steps of the sequential evaluation process. If the ALJ finds that Plaintiff is 17 disabled, the ALJ shall then apply the sequential evaluation process a second time 18 to determine whether Plaintiff’s DAA is a “material factor” contributing to his 19 disability, i.e., whether Plaintiff’s mental impairments would disable him 20 independent of the limitations resulting from DAA. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1535(a), 21 416.935(a). 22 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 23 1. 24 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED IN PART. 25 2. Defendant’s Motion for Remand, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED. 26 3. The matter is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner 27 for additional proceedings consistent with this Order. 28 /// ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 12 1 4. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this 3 Order and provide a copy to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Judgment shall 4 be entered for PLAINTIFF and the file shall be CLOSED. 5 An application for attorney fees may be filed by separate motion. DATED March 28, 2022. 6 7 8 _____________________________________ JAMES A. GOEKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
