Steven Allen Nelson v. Andrew Saul

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-3414
___________________________
Steven Allen Nelson
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 29, 2020
Filed: July 7, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Steven Nelson appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing as time-barred his
complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance
1
The Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District
of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
benefits and supplemental security income. After de novo review, see Bess v.
Barnhart, 337 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (standard of review), we
find no error in the dismissal. We agree with the district court that the action was
untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that Nelson did not allege any circumstances
warranting equitable tolling of the limitations period, see Thompson v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 919 F.3d 1033, 1036 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of whether
plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling; plaintiff bears burden of establishing that
he had been pursuing his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance
stood in his way). To the extent Nelson raised a constitutional claim regarding the
denial of benefits, that claim is inextricably intertwined with his claim for benefits,
and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) (no action against
Commissioner shall be brought based on federal question jurisdiction); Heckler v.
Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 614-15 (1984) (when constitutional claim is inextricably
intertwined with claim for benefits, § 405(h) bars jurisdiction).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-