Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00006/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00006-1/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)

---

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

Craig Phillip Blades,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-00006-PHX-KML

ORDER 

Plaintiff Craig Blades seeks reconsideration of the order remanding this case for 

additional proceedings. (Doc. 26.) Blades explains “[p]rimarily the reason is due to res 

judicata (claim preclusion).” (Doc. 28 at 1.) Blades believes the Social Security 

Administration has asserted a “claim before this court” that “should be dismissed for res 

judicata.” (Doc. 28 at 2.) Blades requests “that all monies collected from [his] monthly 

disability payments . . . be returned promptly to him.” (Doc. 28 at 2.) 

Blades filed his motion within twenty-eight days of the judgment. Thus, his motion 

will be construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. That type of motion “should not be 

granted ‘unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. 

Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 

1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).

Blades has not presented any newly discovered evidence, has not identified any

clear error, and there has not been a change in controlling law. Therefore, Blades is not 

Case 2:24-cv-00006-KML Document 29 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 2
- 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

entitled to relief. Blades is free to argue claim preclusion and seek a return of “all monies” 

during the proceeding on remand.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

Dated this 18th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-00006-KML Document 29 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 2