Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00290-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jennifer Lynn Matthews, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 11-290-TUC-LAB

ORDER

Pending before the court is the defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). (Doc. 32)

The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for

Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In an order issued on July 12, 2012, this court

reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case for payment of benefits. The

Commissioner then filed the pending motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) arguing this action should be remanded for further proceedings, not for

payment of benefits. 

Discussion

“There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion

is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the

Case 4:11-cv-00290-LAB Document 34 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is

necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

(punctuation modified).

In this case, the Commissioner does not argue there has been “an intervening change in

controlling law,” he has newly discovered evidence, or this court has committed “manifest

errors of law or fact.” See Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063. Neither does the Commissioner present

any evidence that this court’s resolution of the case will result in “manifest injustice.” Id.

Instead, the Commissioner argues the court erred when it remanded the case for payment of

benefits rather than for further proceedings. (Doc. 32) A remand for further proceedings, he

maintains, would better accord with the intent of the statutory scheme. Id. He urges the court

to exercise its discretion and amend the judgment accordingly. Id.

The Commissioner, however, already made this argument in his response to the

plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 28, pp. 23-24) The court considered it and implicitly rejected

it. (Doc. 30) A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to reargue issues that have already been

resolved. See Mertens v. U.S., 2012 WL 2675117 *2 (D.Idaho 2012) (“The Rule 59(e) motion

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.”). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is DENIED. (Doc. 32)

DATED this 24th day of October, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00290-LAB Document 34 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 2