Matthews v. Astrue

Filing 34

ORDER denying 32 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie A Bowman on October 24, 2012.(BAR)

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.
)
)
Jennifer Lynn Matthews,

No. CIV 11-290-TUC-LAB
ORDER

16
17
18

Pending before the court is the defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). (Doc. 32)

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(g). In an order issued on July 12, 2012, this court

21

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

22

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

23

Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) arguing this action should be remanded for further proceedings, not for

24

payment 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

In this case, the Commissioner does not argue there has been “an intervening change in

6

controlling law,” he has newly discovered evidence, or this court has committed “manifest

7

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

8

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

9

Instead, the Commissioner argues the court erred when it remanded the case for payment of

10

benefits rather than for further proceedings. (Doc. 32) A remand for further proceedings, he

11

maintains, would better accord with the intent of the statutory scheme. Id. He urges the court

12

to exercise its discretion and amend the judgment accordingly. Id.

13

The Commissioner, however, already made this argument in his response to the

14

plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 28, pp. 23-24) The court considered it and implicitly rejected

15

it. (Doc. 30) A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to reargue issues that have already been

16

resolved. See Mertens v. U.S., 2012 WL 2675117 *2 (D.Idaho 2012) (“The Rule 59(e) motion

17

may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could

18

have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”). Accordingly,

19
20
21

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is DENIED. (Doc. 32)
DATED this 24th day of October, 2012.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-