Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03219/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03219-1/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA A. FULKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-03219 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER

JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to amend or alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 59(e). “Amendment or alteration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if (1) the

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear

error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in

controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations

omitted). There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration. Sch.

Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Defendant contends that the Court committed error by finding that the ALJ did not consider

all of Plaintiff’s impairments in combination. Defendant also asserts that the Court erred by finding

that the ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Alvarez and Dr. Neuwelt’s medical opinions. Finally,

Defendant argues that the Court committed error by finding that the ALJ improperly

assessed Plaintiff’s credibility.

 Upon consideration of Defendant’s arguments, the Court finds that Defendant has not

Case 3:04-cv-03219-MJJ Document 22 Filed 09/19/05 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

demonstrated grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the

Court misapprehended the underlying facts or committed a manifest error of law. Nor has defendant

shown that there is newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to alter or amend

judgment is DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: September__19__, 2005 MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:04-cv-03219-MJJ Document 22 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2