Gay v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER denying 24 Motion to Vacate 22 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Remand,, Order on Report and Recommendation, 23 Judgment . Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JERRY T. GAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-10771
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e)
OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)
Plaintiff initiated this action to challenge the Social Security Commissioner's final
decision denying Plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits
and supplemental security income. In an opinion and order issued February 22, 2012, this
Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion
to amend judgment or, alternatively, for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), respectively. The Commissioner filed a response to the
motion on April 5, 2012. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than twenty-eight
(28) days after entry of the judgment. Rule 59(e) motions may be granted only if there is
a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law,
or to prevent manifest injustice. GenCorp., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804,

834 (6th Cir. 1999).
More time is allowed to file a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60.1 A
Rule 60(b) motion, however, may be granted only for certain specified reasons.2 Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b). In his pending motion, Plaintiff relies on subsection (6): “any other reason
that justifies relief.” Id. Plaintiff did not timely file his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) and
he fails to demonstrate a reason justifying relief under Rule 60(b).
Plaintiff first argues that this Court erred in relying on 20 C.F.R. § 416.1488 to
conclude that the ALJ did not reopen Plaintiff's earlier social security application.
Plaintiff is correct, as his earlier application was for Disability Insurance Benefits only
even though his subsequent application included supplemental security income to which
§ 416.1488 applies. Nevertheless, the Court did not base its decision solely on the time
limitation for reopening an application for benefits set forth in the regulation when
1

Pursuant to subsection (c) of the rule, "[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within
a reasonable time-and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the
judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).
2

In its entirety, Rule 60(b) reads:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other
reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
2

reaching its conclusion. Instead, as indicated in the Court's opinion and order, it also
found nothing in the record to suggest that the ALJ reopened the earlier case. (Doc. 22 at
6.)
The Court further stated in its decision that it was adopting Magistrate Judge
Majzoub's Report and Recommendation, which included her analysis on the reopening
issue. While Plaintiff argues that there was evidence that the ALJ reopened the earlier
case, these are arguments that the magistrate judge and this Court have considered and
rejected. Plaintiff's disagreement with the outcome does not set forth a reason for relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). This is particularly true where the magistrate judge and this Court
have considered the medical opinions submitted in support of Plaintiff's earlier
application for benefits.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment or Alternatively for
Relief from Judgment is DENIED.
Date: April 13, 2012

s/PATRICK S. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies:
Frederick J. Daley Jr., Esq.
AUSA Lynn M. Dodge

3