Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02372/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02372-1/pdf.json

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elvira DeLeon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2372-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On February 10, 2010, the Court issued an order reversing Defendant’s administrative

decision and remanding the case for an award of benefits. Dkt. #21. The Clerk entered

judgment accordingly. Dkt. #22.

Defendant has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #23. Plaintiff has filed a response. Dkt. #25.

No party has requested oral argument. For reasons that follow, the Court will deny the

motion.

Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment in four circumstances:

(1) newly discovered evidence has been presented, (2) the Court committed clear error,

(3) the judgment is manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.

See United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009).

Defendant has shown none of these circumstances. Defendant requests that the Court

clarify that further proceedings are necessary to determine whether Plaintiff meets the

income and resource requirements prescribed by the Social Security Act. Dkt. #24 at 2-3.

Case 2:08-cv-02372-DGC Document 27 Filed 04/14/10 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 -

Plaintiff, however, does not dispute that her financial eligibility for supplemental security

income must be decided as part of the remand in this case. Dkt. #25 at 2. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to alter or amend

judgment (Dkt. #23) is denied.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02372-DGC Document 27 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2