Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00082/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

06cv82-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE D. SNOVELLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

PROPOSED NEW EVIDENCE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s

denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 44. On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff attempted to file new

exhibits in support of her motion. The Court rejected these documents via a discrepancy order

for the reasons set forth below.

In social security cases, the role of the district court is wholly appellate. The district court

may not consider new evidence in reviewing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

(Commissioner). See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (explaining that the court may consider only “the

pleadings and transcript of the record”); see also Ellis v. Bowen, 820 F.2d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 1987)

(expressly confirming that “[t]he courts may not take new evidence”); Carolyn A. Kubitschek &

Jon C. Dubin, Social Security Disability Law and Procedure in Federal Court § 9.57 (West, 2011

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 04/28/11 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

1

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court also lacks jurisdiction to conduct a de novo review, as

Plaintiff requests in her pending motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 44 at 1-2. 

2 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

ed.) (“the District Court may not consider evidence outside of the administrative record in

reviewing a claim for benefits”). A plaintiff may file a motion requesting that the district court

remand the case to the Commissioner for the consideration of the new evidence. However,

remand is appropriate only when the claimant has presented new evidence that is material to

determining the claimant’s disability and demonstrated good cause for having failed to produce

the evidence earlier. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir.

2001); Wainwright v. Sec’y of Health and Human Serv., 939 F.2d 680, 682 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Because this Court cannot consider Plaintiff’s proposed new evidence in conjunction with

her pending motion for summary judgment1

 and because Plaintiff did not submit the new

evidence as part of a motion for remand, this Court was required to reject it for filing. Absent any

subsequent changes to the posture of this case, this Court will proceed with reviewing the

decision of the Commissioner in light of the administrative record on file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2011

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 47 Filed 04/28/11 Page 2 of 2