Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04124/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04124-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANET H. GARFIELD,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Defendant. /

No. C03-04124 MJJ

ORDER DENYING RULE 59(e) MOTION

On September 10, 2003, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit challenging the Social Security Administration’s

denial of benefits and alleging violation of her due process rights. On July 26, 2004, the Court

remanded Plaintiff’s case to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for a determination of whether

good cause exists to extend the statutory sixty-day administrative limitations period for filing a request

for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

On December 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. #22.) In her

Motion, Plaintiff alleged that the SSA failed to properly prepare her file so that the parties can proceed

with an administrative hearing in accordance with this Court’s Order remanding her case. On December

20, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (Doc. #25). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:03-cv-04124-VRW Document 28 Filed 01/10/06 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

Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend that Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e). The Court has considered the arguments presented in Plaintiff’s Motion and finds no basis

warranting modification of the Court’s prior order denying Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/10/06 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04124-VRW Document 28 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2