Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03662/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03662-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDRA ELSHIRBINY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-03662 WHA

Related to:

No. C 02-05698 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In this social-security appeal, the administrative law judge’s conclusion that plaintiff

was not entitled to claim an earlier disability onset date was supported by substantial evidence. 

Judgment was entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff on July 12, 2005. Plaintiff,

still acting pro se, now moves for reconsideration. Because plaintiff fails to meet any of the

standards outlined in FRCP 59 or FRCP 60, this motion is DENIED.

A motion to alter or amend a judgment under FRCP 59(e) must be filed “no later than 10

days after entry of the judgment.” Plaintiff’s motion is thus untimely. Regardless, a motion for

reconsideration under FRCP 59(e) should not be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances,

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or

if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 398 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold,

179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that any such

circumstances exist; instead, she merely repeats arguments made in her motion for summary

judgment.

Case 3:04-cv-03662-WHA Document 30 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A motion for relief from judgment under FRCP 60(b) may be granted for various

reasons, namely: (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

which could not be discovered by due diligence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other

misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason

justifying relief from operation of judgment. Relief under exception (6) above requires a

finding of “extraordinary circumstances.” Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637

F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff likewise fails to demonstrate that any of these

reasons are applicable here.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03662-WHA Document 30 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2