Barnes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 155

ORDER - Plaintiff's motion to reopen her case (ECF No. 145 ) is denied. Plaintiff's motion to supplement (ECF No. 154 ) is likewise denied. Defendant's motion for an extension of time to respond to the Motion (ECF No. 147 ) is granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/3/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

PATRICIA G. BARNES,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:18-cv-00199-MMD-WGC
ORDER

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner Social Security
Administration,

10

Defendants.

11
12

Pro se Plaintiff Patricia G. Barnes has moved to have this Court reopen her case

13

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“Motion”), contending that the Court erred in ruling on all of

14

her claims. (ECF No. 145.) 1 The Court will deny the Motion.

15

Rule 59(e) allows a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order as an

16

““extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of

17

judicial resources.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)

18

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not

19

be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented

20

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change

21

in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

22

1999). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for

23

the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona

24

Enter., 229 F.3d at 890 (citing 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 665).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

1The

Court has also considered Defendant’s response (ECF No. 150) and Plaintiff’s
reply (ECF No. 153).

1

Plaintiff’s Motion neither identifies new evidence, a change in controlling law, nor

2

demonstrates that the Court’s Order committed clear error or was manifestly unjust.

3

Plaintiff largely attempts to raise new issues that could have been previously raised and

4

otherwise argues that the Court improperly applied the applicable standard and cannot

5

dismiss her case with prejudice at this stage. None of Plaintiff’s arguments belie this

6

Court’s ruling dismissing Plaintiff’s case with prejudice.

7
8
9

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen her case (ECF No. 145) is
denied. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement (ECF No. 154) is likewise denied.
It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to respond to

10

the Motion (ECF No. 147) is granted nunc pro tunc.

11

DATED THIS 3rd day of October 2019.

12
13

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2