Kuchenberg v. Astrue

Filing 20

ORDER denying 17 Motion to to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Signed by Magistrate Judge Glenda E Edmonds on 9/12/11.(BAC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of )
)
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Brenda Kuchenberg,

No. CIV 10-726-TUC-GEE
ORDER

16
17
18

Pending before the court is the defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). (Doc. 17)

19

The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for

20

Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(b). In an order issued on July 5, 2011, this court

21

reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case for payment of benefits. The

22

Commissioner then filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to

23

Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) arguing this action should have been remanded for further proceedings rather

24

than for an award of benefits.

25
26

Discussion

27

“There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion

28

is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the

1

moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is

2

necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.

3

Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

4

(punctuation modified).

5

The Commissioner does not argue there has been an intervening change in the controlling

6

law, that he has newly discovered evidence, or that this court has committed “manifest errors

7

of law or fact.” See Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063. Neither does the Commissioner present any

8

evidence that this court’s resolution of the case will result in a “manifest injustice.” Id. Instead,

9

the Commissioner argues there is case law that supports remanding the action for further

10

proceedings rather than for payment of benefits. He urges this court to exercise its discretion

11

and amend the judgment accordingly. At best, the Commissioner’s argument supports the

12

proposition that reasonable minds could differ over the best resolution of this action. This is

13

an insufficient premise upon which to base a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).

14

Accordingly,

15
16
17

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is DENIED. (Doc. 17)

18
19

DATED this 12th day of September, 2011.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-