Swanson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER: Motion to Amend/Correct 30 is DENIED. Signed on 7/26/2023 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Case 6:16-cv-01615-AA

Document 33

Filed 07/26/23

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENTA S.1,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 6:16-cv-01615-AA

v.

OPINION & ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge:
This case comes before the Court on the Commissioner’s Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 30.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 59(e), a party may move “to alter or amend a judgment” within 28
days of its entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “A district court has considerable discretion
when considering a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).”

Turner v.

Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). A motion to
alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is, however, an “extraordinary remedy,
to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”

1

In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental
party or parties in this case.
Page 1 – OPINION & ORDER

Case 6:16-cv-01615-AA

Document 33

Filed 07/26/23

Page 2 of 3

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion
if it “is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d
1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted,
alteration normalized). This standard presents a “high hurdle” for a litigant seeking
reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir.
2001).
In addition, “Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment but it
may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence
that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v.
Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
see also Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming
district court’s denial of Rule 59(e) motion that “repeated legal arguments made
earlier.”).
DISCUSSION
In its motion, the Commissioner asserts that the Court committed clear error
when it “found the RFC defective because it did not include the words ‘moderate
difficulties in concentration, persistence, or pace,’” because “the ALJ was not required
to include the finding that Plaintiff [had] moderate difficulties with concentration,
persistent, or pact in the residual functional capacity.” Def. Mot. 2.

Page 2 – OPINION & ORDER

Case 6:16-cv-01615-AA

Document 33

Filed 07/26/23

Page 3 of 3

This is not what the Court concluded. Rather, the Court found that the ALJ
had failed to fully incorporate her earlier findings concerning moderate difficulties in
concentration, persistence, and pace when formulating Plaintiff’s RFC. Opinion &
Order (“O&O”), 4-5. ECF No. 28. The Court did not find that the ALJ needed to
include any particular or specific words as the Commissioner suggests in its motion.
The balance of the Commissioner’s motion is devoted to arguing that the ALJ’s
formulation of Plaintiff’s RFC was legally sufficient and supported by substantial
evidence. This issue was included in the Commissioner’s Brief, ECF No. 22, and was
fully litigated. Motions brought under Rule 59(e) are not intended to permit parties
to relitigate old matters.
The Court concludes that the Commissioner has failed to meet the “high
hurdle” necessary to justify reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The Commissioner’s
Motion, ECF No. 30, is DENIED.
26th
It is so ORDERED and DATED this ___________
day of July 2023.

/s/Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge

Page 3 – OPINION & ORDER