Carpenter v. Commissioner
Filing
24
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -- the Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 21 is GRANTED, and judgment will be altered to reflect that this Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin on 4/21/2021. (mc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEBRA CARPENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-20-391-STE
AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER & OPINION
Before the Court is Defendant Commissioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).1 (ECF No. 21). Ms. Carpenter has responded to the
motion,2 (ECF No. 22), and the Commissioner has replied. (ECF No. 23).The parties
previously consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over Ms. Carpenter’s appeal of the
Commissioner’s unfavorable decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The parties have briefed their positions, and the motion is at issue. Based on the
Court’s review of the record, the Commissioner’s motion, Ms. Carpenter’s response and
the Commissioner’s reply, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s Rule 59(e) motion and
AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. Judgment reflecting the Court’s alteration will be
entered accordingly.
“Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
1
Relying on Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1242 (10th Cir. 1991) (Rule 59(e) motion to be
filed within ten days of judgment), Ms. Carpenter argued that the Commissioner’s Rule 59(e)
motion was untimely as it was filed 28 days after entry of judgment. (ECF No. 22). Ms. Carpenter
was, however, relying on a prior version of Rule 59(e). Rule 59(e) was amended in 2009 to allow
a twenty-eight day period for filing such a motion. Defendant’s motion was timely filed.
2
“Rule 59(e) motions may be granted when ‘the court has misapprehended the
facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.’” Nelson v. City of Albuquerque, 921 F.3d
925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1012 (10th Cir. 2000). In this case, the Commissioner bases his Rule 59(e) motion on
legal error.
The Commissioner is correct in his assertion that the Court committed legal error
by improperly placing the burden of proving Plaintiff’s RFC on the Commissioner and is
also correct in its assertion that the Court’s legal error affected the outcome.
Having carefully reviewed the rules and regulations governing social security
appeals, the Court finds the Commissioner’s argument to be meritorious; and further finds
that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error.
Accordingly, the Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is GRANTED, and
judgment will be altered to reflect that this Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision
in this matter.3
ENTERED on April 21, 2021.
The filing of a Rule 59(e) motion within the 28-day period “suspends the finality of the original
judgment” for purposes of an appeal. FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 373,
n. 10 (1984) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Only the disposition of a Rule
59(e) motion “restores th[e] finality” of the original judgment, thus starting the 30-day appeal
clock. Id. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) (A party’s “time to file an appeal runs” from “the
entry of the order disposing of the [Rule 59(e)] motion”); See also Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct.
1698, 1703–04 207 (2020).
3
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?