Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jean Paul LAUREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-36010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 7, 2010.
    Jean Paul Lauren, Bozeman, MT, pro se.
    George F. Darragh, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Dorrelyn Kay Dietrich, SSA-Social Security Administration, General Counsel’s Office, Region VIII, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jean Paul Lauren appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action against the Commissioner of Social Security alleging improper denial of his Plan to Achieve Self-Support (“PASS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision. Ukolov v. Barnhart, 420 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lauren’s proposed PASS failed adequately to delineate the part of his income that he intended to “use or set aside to use for expenses :.. determine[d] to be reasonable and necessary to fulfill an approved [PASS,]” as was necessary to evaluate his eligibility for the Supplemental Security Income he sought to obtain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1180 et seq. (setting forth requirements for viable PASS proposals).

The Commissioner’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted.

Lauren’s motion for oral argument is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       ■pkjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.