Abdulhalim v. Colvin

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ( 24 , 25 ) MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND AND FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HANIFEL EL SAYYID ABDULHALIM,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CAROLINE COLVIN,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-01481-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS TO ALTER OR AMEND
AND FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 24 & 25

12
Before the Court are the motions to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of

13
14

Procedure 59(e) and for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) filed by

15

Plaintiff Hanifel El Sayyid Abdulhalim (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. Nos. 24 (“MAJ”) & 25 (“MRJ”). Each

16

motion seeks relief from the judgment previously entered in favor of Defendant Caroline Colvin,

17

Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”) following the Court’s

18

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 20 & 23. Defendant has

19

filed a consolidated opposition, Dkt. No. 32 (“Opp.”), and Plaintiff has filed a consolidated reply,

20

Dkt. No. 33 (“Reply”).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds

21
22

that these motions are suitable for disposition without oral argument. For the reasons set forth

23

below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to alter or amend and for relief from the judgment.

24

I.

25

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on March 31, 2015, appealing the final decision of

26

the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) that denied his application for disability insurance

27

benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1.

28

On July 27, 2015, the SSA lodged a transcript of the underlying administrative proceedings

1

with the Court. Dkt. No. 14. On August 12, 2015, Plaintiff moved to replace four pages of the

2

transcript. Dkt. No. 15. He explained that those pages contained the medical opinion of one of

3

Plaintiff’s treating physicians, Dr. Richard Patel, but the document lacked his signature. Id. at 1.

4

But for this difference, Plaintiff represented that it was “the same document.” Id. The unsigned

5

version was “inadvertently sent to Defendant due to clerical error.” Dkt. No. 15-1 ¶ 3.

6

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on September 19, 2015. Dkt. No. 17. The Court

7

denied Plaintiff’s motion on February 1, 2016. Dkt. No. 20. In that Order, the Court considered

8

Plaintiff’s claim that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to properly weigh Dr. Patel’s

9

opinion when assessing Plaintiff’s residual functioning capacity, and rejected it. Id. at 10-11.

10

Specifically, the Court stated the following with regard to its consideration of Dr. Patel’s opinion:
The ALJ properly took Plaintiff’s moderate mental limitations
identified by Dr. Patel . . . into account when assessing his RFC, as
reflected in the qualifications to the RFC . . . The Court finds that
the ALJ properly weighed and incorporated Dr. Patel’s and Ms.
Leung’s opinion into his RFC assessment.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Id. The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant on February 9, 2016. Dkt. No. 23.
Plaintiff then filed the instant motions to alter or amend and for relief from the judgment.

15
16

He claims that the Court clearly erred in entering judgment for Defendant because the ALJ did not

17

have the benefit of considering Dr. Patel’s signed opinion when he denied Plaintiff’s application

18

for social security benefits. MAJ at 5-6; MRJ at 2. Plaintiff characterizes the signed version of

19

Dr. Patel’s opinion as “newly discovered probative evidence” that “the ALJ never saw.” MAJ at

20

2-3; see also MRJ at 2, 6. He asserts that Defendant has engaged in misconduct by refusing to

21

stipulate to remand this action so that the ALJ can review this new evidence. MRJ at 1, 3.

22

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

23

A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) authorizes a motion to alter or amend a judgment.

25

In the Ninth Circuit, a Rule 59(e) reconsideration motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used

26

sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Wood v. Ryan, 759

27

F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). “A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should not be

28

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly
2

1

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

2

law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999 (en banc) (emphasis original).

3

A district court may also grant a Rule 59(e) motion to “prevent manifest injustice.” Turner v.

4

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

5

B.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) permits a losing party to move for relief from
judgment on the basis of “fraud . . . misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.”

8

“To prevail, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was

9

obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained of

10

prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” De Saracho v. Custom

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). “Rule 60(b)(3) is aimed at judgments

12

which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually incorrect.” Id. (quotation marks and

13

citation omitted). District courts have wide discretion in making this determination. See id.

14

III.

Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)(3) motions are meritless, and the Court denies both

15
16

DISCUSSION

motions.
Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion

17

A.

18

With respect to his Rule 59(e) motion, Plaintiff does not claim that the Court clearly erred

19

in its substantive analysis of the ALJ’s opinion denying social security benefits and he does not

20

claim that there has been an intervening change in the law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); McDowell,

21

197 F.3d at 1255. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that the copy of Dr. Patel’s opinion that includes his

22

signature constitutes “newly discovered evidence.” See MAJ at 2, 6; MRJ at 2-3. As the Court

23

stated in its Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, “[t]he ALJ properly took

24

Plaintiff’s moderate mental limitations identified by Dr. Patel . . . into account when assessing his

25

RFC, as reflected in the qualifications to the RFC[.]” Dkt. No. 20 at 10-11. And there is no

26

evidence in the record that the ALJ discounted Dr. Patel’s opinion because it was unsigned.

27

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion is denied.

28

///
3

Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(3) Motion

1

B.

2

With respect to his Rule 60(b)(3) motion, Plaintiff claims that Defendant has committed

3

misconduct that “threatens manifest injustice” because she refused to stipulate to remand this case

4

for the ALJ to reconsider in light of the signed version of Dr. Patel’s opinion. MRJ at 3-4.

5

Defendant is well within her rights to refuse to voluntarily stipulate to remand this case to the ALJ

6

given the facts laid out above, especially after she defeated Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.

7

Plaintiff’s claim that this constituted actionable misconduct that warrants the Court reversing its

8

summary judgment order lacks any basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion is denied.

9

IV.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or

amend the judgment and Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion for relief from the judgment.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/19/2016

15
16
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4