UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PHILLIP WALTER SIMON,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25 - 3452 (LLA) v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On November 5, 2025, the court dismissed Plaintiff Phillip Walter Simon’s pro se action

against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and the Office of Child Support

Enforcement.1 ECF No. 31. Mr. Simon now seeks relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), ECF No. 32, an order certifying a constitutional question pursuant to

, ECF No. 33, and sanctions, ECF No. 39. Defendants have filed a motion for an

extension of time to respond to Mr. Simon’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 40, which

Mr. Simon opposes, ECF No. 41. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny

Mr. Simon’s motions and deny Defendants’ motion as moot.

1 Mr. Simon named as Defendant the “Office of Child Support Enforcement,” a subcomponent of HHS that was renamed the Office of Child Support Services in 2023. ECF No. 11, at 1 n.1; see U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Off. of Child Support Servs., Name Change to Office of Child Support Services, https://perma.cc/JR48-P5UJ. The court will thus refer to this Defendant as the Office of Child Support Services. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The court recounts the facts as described in its previous memorandum opinion. ECF

No. 30. The Social Security Act generally protects Social Security benefits, which are

administered by the SSA, from “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.”

(a). Veterans’ benefits are administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs

(“VA”) and are also exempt from “attachment, levy, or seizure.”

(a)(1).

However, as relevant here, “[t]he United States has made itself subject to state-authorized

garnishment proceedings . . . for the enforcement of child-support obligations” under

. El-Amin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-2209,

, at *4 (3d Cir. Oct. 30,

2023) (per curiam); see

(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii)(I);

(2025).

Mr. Simon is a veteran who was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army in 2013. ECF

No. 1, at 5; see ECF No. 2-1 ¶ 2; ECF No. 22, at 20-21, 23.2 In 2017, the VA rated Mr. Simon as

“100% disabled,” ECF No. 2-1 ¶ 4, which means that he is “considered to be totally and

permanently disabled due solely to [his] service-connected disabilities,” ECF No. 22, at 23.

Mr. Simon receives $2,108.40 in monthly Social Security disability benefits, ECF No. 22 at 14,

and $5,122.47 in monthly disability compensation from the VA,

; see ECF No. 2-2, at 7.

2 When citing Mr. Simon’s filings, the court uses the page numbers generated by CM/ECF, rather than any internal pagination.

2 As part of family court proceedings in the Superior Court of California, Mr. Simon was

ordered to pay $500 per month to support his three minor children.3 Ex. A at 4-5, Simon v. Cumba,

No. 25-CV-107 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025), ECF No. 10-2; see Watts-Simon v. Simon,

No. 21FL004274N (Cal. Sup. Ct.); Compl. ¶ 5, Simon v. Cumba, No. 25-CV-107

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025), ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 26, at 10-19 (various motions filed by

Mr. Simon in the child support proceedings), 27-31 (Superior Court of California commissioner’s

findings regarding child support). In June 2025, the County of San Diego Department of Child

Support Services (“DCSS”) sent an income withholding order to the SSA’s Benefits Office for

San Diego, instructing the office to “[d]educt a portion of the benefits otherwise payable to [the]

Social Security beneficiary” in the amount of $700 per month—$500 for current child support and

$200 for past-due child support. ECF No. 11-1, at 1-4.

On July 31, 2025, the SSA sent Mr. Simon a letter notifying him that it “ha[d] been ordered

to take $700.00 from each monthly payment . . . to pay [his] obligation for child support, alimony

or court ordered victim restitution” in connection with “court order number 200000002737095.”

ECF No. 22, at 17; see ECF No. 11-1, at 3 (income withholding order with case ID number

200000002737095). The SSA advised Mr. Simon that if he “disagree[d] with the decision of the

court that issued the garnishment order,” he should contact the court that issued the order. ECF

No. 22, at 17.

3 Mr. Simon has filed multiple federal suits challenging the dissolution of his marriage and his child support obligations, each of which has been dismissed. See Simon v. Washington, No. 25-CV-109 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025), ECF No. 13, appeal dismissed, No. 25-2159 (9th Cir. July 17, 2025), ECF No. 14 (dismissing appeal as frivolous); Simon v. Cumba, No. 25-CV-107 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025), ECF No. 23, appeal docketed, No. 25-1727 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2025); Simon v. Bostic, No. 24-CV-1665 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025), ECF No. 52, appeal dismissed, No. 25-2164 (9th Cir. July 17, 2025), ECF No. 15 (dismissing appeal as frivolous); Simon v. Superior Ct. of Cal., No. 23-CV-889 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2024), ECF No. 19.

3 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In September 2025, Mr. Simon filed this action alleging that Defendants are unlawfully

garnishing his “VA disability benefits . . . , which are protected from levy, garnishment, and

seizure under . . . 38 U.S.C. § 5301” and that Defendants have “failed to correct or halt reliance on

[his] false classification” as a “retired” veteran. ECF No. 1, at 5. He also filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 2. Over the following month,

Mr. Simon filed several supplemental submissions in support of his motion. ECF Nos. 4, 5, 8.

In October 2025, Defendants filed a combined opposition to the motion for injunctive relief

and motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. ECF

Nos. 10, 11. Mr. Simon filed a reply in support of his motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 12,

and an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22. Defendants also filed a notice

regarding the lapse of appropriations, ECF No. 18, which Mr. Simon opposed, ECF No. 20. In

response, the court ordered that Defendants need not file any additional responses. See Oct. 20,

2025 Minute Order. Mr. Simon filed additional motions and notices seeking various forms of

relief. ECF Nos. 13 to 17, 19, 23 to 29.

On November 5, 2025, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed

Mr. Simon’s pending motions as moot, and dismissed the action. ECF Nos. 30, 31. The court

concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Simon’s garnishment-related claims

because

“enacts an absolute shield to government liability for payments made

‘pursuant to legal process regular on its face.’” El-Amin,

, at *4 (quoting United

States v. Morton,

(1984)); see ECF No. 30, at 7-12. The court also dismissed

Mr. Simon’s claims challenging the DOJ’s failure to act on his complaints for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 30, at 14-15. The court then dismissed Mr. Simon’s claims

alleging that Defendants did not correct his military classification for failure to state a claim.

4 at 15-16. The same day, Mr. Simon filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

Rule 60(d)(3) based on fraud on the court, ECF No. 32, and a motion to certify constitutional

questions pursuant to

, ECF No. 33. Also on November 5, Mr. Simon filed a

notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, ECF No. 34, and, the following

day, he filed two supplemental declarations in support of his motions, ECF Nos. 36, 37. The D.C.

Circuit has held the appeal in abeyance pending this court’s resolution of Mr. Simon’s

Rule 60 motion. Order, Simon v. Social Sec. Admin., No. 25-5397 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 6, 2025).

Mr. Simon also filed a motion for sanctions in December 2025. ECF No. 39. Defendants

filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Mr. Simon’s reconsideration motion, ECF

No. 40, which Mr. Simon opposed, ECF No. 41.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 60(d)(3) provides that a court has the power “to set aside a judgment for fraud on the

court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). “Fraud on the court . . . is directed to the judicial machinery itself

and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.” Willett

v. Pompeo,

, 9 (D.D.C. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Baltia Air Lines,

Inc. v. Transaction Mgmt., Inc.,

(D.C. Cir. 1996)). Relief under Rule 60(d)(3) is

“very rarely warranted, and is ‘typically confined to the most egregious cases, such as bribery of

a judge or a juror, or improper influence exerted on the court by an attorney, in which the integrity

of the court and its ability to function impartially is directly impinged.’” More v. Lew,

(D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,

, 1356 (4th Cir. 1982)). The party alleging fraud on the court “must present ‘clear and

convincing evidence.’” Willett, 640 F. Supp. 3d at 9 (quoting Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos.,

(D.C. Cir. 1995)).

5 IV. DISCUSSION

Mr. Simon fails to meet the “extraordinarily high standard” for showing fraud on the court.

Stonehill v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 06-CV-599,

, at *4 (D.D.C. Nov. 5,

2024). Mr. Simon first argues that Defendants’ counsel “knowingly submitted” to the court a

“fabricated and jurisdictionally void” Income Withholding Order (“IWO”) as part of a “deliberate

scheme to mislead the Court.” ECF No. 32, at 1-3 (emphases omitted); see ECF No. 36, at 1-3;

ECF No. 37, at 1-4. He points to a later version of the IWO signed by a different DCSS

representative as an example of an “administrative reproduction[] fabricated by child-support

enforcement staff acting without jurisdiction or authority.” ECF No. 37, at 1. However, the court

has already rejected Mr. Simon’s arguments that the IWO was defective and that the commissioner

who issued his child support order lacked jurisdiction over him, see ECF No. 30, at 11-12, and

Mr. Simon’s new assertion that his current DCSS case manager recently re-issued an identical

version of the IWO does not suggest fraud. In any event, as noted, fraudulent documents and false

statements are considered fraud “between the parties,” not fraud “directed to the judicial machinery

itself.” Willett, 640 F. Supp. 3d at 9 (quoting Baltia Air Lines,

). Accordingly, even

assuming Mr. Simon’s allegations are true, he still fails to establish fraud on the court. See

Stonehill,

, at *4 (denying a Rule 60(d)(3) motion where the plaintiff alleged

that the defendant and its attorneys submitted false declarations).

Mr. Simon further argues that Defendants’ counsel “knowingly misrepresented [him] as a

‘military retiree’” and omitted documents showing the administrative complaints he had

previously filed with Defendants. ECF No. 32, at 3. He contends that Defendants’ fraud

“prevented the Court from performing its constitutional duty to enforce

and

due-process protections.”

. These arguments, too, fail to establish fraud. Mr. Simon does

not present any evidence that Defendants’ counsel “knowingly misrepresented” facts to the court,

6

, let alone that counsel exerted “improper influence” on the court, More,

(quoting Great Coastal Express, 675 F.2d at 1356), akin to bribery of a judge or knowing

participation in the presentation of perjured testimony, see Baltia Air Lines,

.

Similarly, Defendants’ counsel’s alleged “omission” of potentially relevant materials, ECF No. 32,

at 3, is not sufficient to establish fraud, see Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.,

(D.D.C. 2013), aff’d, No. 13-5294,

(D.C. Cir. Apr. 25, 2014)

(per curiam) (“[T]he mere fact that the government did not tell the court everything it knew about

[the plaintiff’s] claims . . . does not mean that there was fraud on the court.”).4

Mr. Simon’s remaining arguments merely reflect his disagreement with the court’s

decision and do not justify relief from judgment. See ECF No. 32, at 3-4 (arguing that Defendants

“conceal[ed]” jurisdictional issues in his state-court proceedings); ECF No. 36, at 2-4 (arguing that

the court has jurisdiction over his garnishment-related claims and erred in dismissing his other

motions as moot); ECF No. 37, at 3-4 (arguing that the court ignored statutory and constitutional

violations). Rule 60(d)(3) does not provide a vehicle for relitigating the merits of a plaintiff’s

claims, and Mr. Simon “cannot assert fraud or fraud on the court simply because he disagrees with

the rulings of this Court.” Jordan v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab.,

, 452 (D.D.C. 2019), aff’d,

4 For similar reasons, the court also denies Mr. Simon’s motion for sanctions, ECF No. 39, which alleges that Defendants’ counsel knowingly made false representations and submitted “fabricated state forms” to the court,

. “Rule 11 sanctions are an extreme punishment for filing pleadings that frustrate judicial proceedings,” Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation,

(D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Wasserman v. Rodacker, No. 06-CV-1005,

, at *7 (D.D.C. July 18, 2007)), and Mr. Simon has not provided any evidence supporting his accusations, let alone any evidence warranting the extreme punishment of sanctions.

7 No. 19-5201,

(D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2020) (per curiam). The court will therefore

deny Mr. Simon’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3).5

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Simon’s Motion for Relief

from Judgment, ECF No. 32, Motion to Certify Constitutional Questions, ECF No. 33, and Motion

for Sanctions, ECF No. 39, are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for

Extension of Time, ECF No. 40, is DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge

Date: December 5, 2025

5 Mr. Simon also requests that the court certify to the U.S. Attorney General that this case draws into question the constitutionality of an act of Congress affecting the public interest pursuant to

(a). ECF No. 33. Section 2403(a) requires certification only when “the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party” to the suit. Here, regardless of whether this case raises a constitutional question, certification is not required because Defendants are agencies of the United States.

8