Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01241/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01241-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 861
Nature of Suit: Social Security - HIA (1395 ff)
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD W. LINCOLN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-1241-EFB 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner 

of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his applications for a period of disability and 

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II 

and XVI of the Social Security Act. The court previously denied plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and entered 

judgment against plaintiff. ECF Nos. 27 & 28. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the order 

denying his motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 29. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides that a court may relieve a party of a final 

judgment or order for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(1). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) 

Case 2:16-cv-01241-EFB Document 32 Filed 04/22/20 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 

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration 

state, “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 

were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why 

the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 

230(j)(3)-(4). 

Plaintiff’s motion merely states that he disagrees with the court’s decision, and that he has 

new medical information that was not previously considered.1 ECF No. 29 at 1. Plaintiff, 

however, does not present any specific arguments demonstrating that the court erred in denying 

his motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration must be denied. 

Plaintiff also requests that if his motion for reconsideration is denied, his filing be 

construed as a notice of appeal. Id. That request is granted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 29) is denied; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion is also construed as a notice of appeal, and the Clerk is directed to 

process plaintiff’s appeal. 

DATED: April 21, 2020. 

1

 Plaintiff does not submit the purported new medical information. Nor has he 

demonstrated that the court could properly consider such information. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (“As in other administrative law contexts, judicial review in cases 

under the Social Security Act is limited to a review of the administrative record for a 

determination of whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the 

record.”). 

Case 2:16-cv-01241-EFB Document 32 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 2