(SS)(PS) Beaton v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL NIVARD BENTON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01092-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND 13 v. DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS MATTER 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ECF No. 8 15 Defendant. 16 17 The parties appeared before me on November 16, 2023, on defendant’s motion to dismiss. 18 ECF No. 8. Plaintiff appeared pro se, and attorney Jeff Staples appeared for defendant 19 Commissioner of Social Security. 20 The complaint alleged that plaintiff was denied access to a Social Security Administration 21 (“SSA”) office in July 2022 because of a ban that had been instituted against him in 2011 for 22 allegedly threatening the Commissioner. ECF No. 1. The complaint sought to overturn the ban 23 and to obtain for plaintiff access to a SSA office. 24 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) 25 arguing that plaintiff’s claim became moot when the SSA lifted plaintiff’s ban in October 2022. 26 ECF No. 8. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that he was still being denied access even after 27 the ban was lifted. ECF No. 9. For support, he included a declaration from R. Neil Young, a 28 1 | Social Worker, who stated that on July 19, 2023, security guards at the Redding, California SSA 2 | Office had not allowed plaintiff to enter the building because of the ban. /d. at 3. After the court 3 | set this matter for hearing, defendant filed a status report claiming that plaintiff entered a SSA 4 | office on October 4, 2023, and that plaintiff has been receiving Social Security benefits since July 5 | 2022. ECF No. 15-1 at 2. Plaintiff stated on the record at the hearing that he has both been able 6 | to enter a SSA office and that he has received benefits. 7 For the reasons stated on the record, and in light of plaintiff's representations, the court 8 | finds that plaintiffs claim is moot. See Richard v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 15-cv-1528 (ENV), 9 | 2016 WL 4690394, at *3 (E.D. NY 2016) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss since 10 | plaintiff's claim about being banned from SSA offices became moot once the “SSA voluntarily 11 | lifted the ban.”). 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 13 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8, is granted. 14 2. Plaintiffs claim is dismissed as moot. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ November 16, 2023 Q_-——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28