N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAC QUETTA NAC OSTE-HAR R IS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NANC Y A. B ERR

YHILL, Ac ting C om m issione r of the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-35022 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01594-JO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon R obe rt E. Jone s, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 4, 2017 * * B e fore : C LIFTON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ja c que tta Na c oste -Harris a

ppe a ls pro se the distric t

c o urt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the C om

m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity ’ s de n ia l of Na c oste -Harris’ s 

# FIL ED OCT 04 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a

pplic ation for supplem e nta l se c urity inc om e unde r Title XVI of the Soc ia l Se c urity Ac t. W e re vie w de novo, Ghanim v . C o lv in , 763 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th C ir. 2014), a

nd we a ffirm . Na c oste -Harris c onte nds tha t the a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ ALJ” ) disc rim inate d a ga inst he r be c a use she is a

form e r a ddic t a

nd wa s using m arijua

na at the tim e of he r he aring. W e disa gre e . The ALJ did not deny Na c oste -Ha

rris’ s c la im on the ba sis of he r pa s t or pre se nt drug use . R at he r, the ALJ found tha

t Na c oste -Ha

rris’ s “ history of c ra c k c oc a i ne de pe nde nc e and c urre nt m arijua na a buse i s not a

m ate ria l fa c tor in this de c ision.” As a re sult, Na c oste -Harris’ s a lle gations do not show tha t the ALJ’ s be h av ior re fle c te d a c le ar ina bility to re nde r fa ir judgm e nt, a

nd the y are not suffic i e nt to re b ut the pre sum ption tha t a n ALJ is unbia s e d. Bay l iss v . Barnhart , 427 F.3d 1211, 1214–15 (9th C i r. 2005). C onstruing Na c oste -Harris’ s ple a dings libera l ly , Garmon v . C ty . of Los Ange le s , 828 F.3d 837, 846 (9th C ir. 2016), shec onte nds tha t the ALJ disc ounte d he r te stim ony

a bout these ve rity

of he r sym

ptom s be c a

use she is a

form e r a ddic t. The ALJ did not me ntion Na c oste -Harris’ s form e r c oc a ine use or he r c urre nt m arijua na use a s a ba sis for finding her sym ptom te stim ony

le ss tha n fully c re d ible . The ALJ did, howe ve r, c onside r Na c o ste -Harris’ s drug use in form ulat ing he r re sidua l func t iona l c a pa c ity (“ RFC ” ), a

nd the ALJ inc lude d in the 2RFC gre ate r lim i tations, in pa rt, to a c c om

m odat e Na c oste -Harris’ s drug use . This wa s not only

pe rm issible , but re quire d. Se e Robbins v . Soc . Se c . Admin. , 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th C ir. 2006) (“ In de te rm ining a c la im ant’ s R

FC , a n ALJ m ust c onside r a ll re le va nt e vide nc e in the re c o rd, inc l uding, inte r alia , m e dic a l re c ords, la y e vide nc e , a

nd ‘ the e ffe c ts of sy

m ptom s, inc luding pa in, tha t are re a sona

bly attribute d to a

m e dic a lly

de te rm ina

ble im p a irm e nt.’ ” (quoting SSR 96-8p, 1996 W L 374184, a

t *5)). B e c a

use the ALJ’ s inc lusion of a dditiona l R FC lim ita t ions be ne fits, ra

the r tha n pre judic e s, Na c oste -Harris, a ny e rror in disc ussing he r drug use is ha rm le ss. C f. J ohnson v . Shalala , 60 F.3d 1428, 1436 n.9 (9th C ir. 1995) (finding ha

rm l e ss a n ALJ’ s “ ove rinc lusion” of lim i ting fa c tors in thehy pothe tic a l pose d to a

voc ationa l e xpe rt be c a

use it be ne fitte d the c la im a n t ). Fina lly , Na c oste -Harris atta c he d a dditiona l e vide nc e to he r ope ning brie f. R e m a nd unde r 42 U.S.C . § 405(g) is not a ppropria te be c a use Na c oste -Harris ha s not shown a

re a sona ble possibility

of a diffe re nt outc om e if the e vide nc e ha d be e n pre s e nte d to a

nd c onside re d by

the a ge nc y . Booz v . Se c ’y of He alth &Human Se rv s. , 734 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th C ir. 1984). Four of the pa ge s of Na c oste -Harris’ s ne w e vide nc e doc um e nt he r substa nc e a buse tre atm e nt in 2007, a n d he r subse que nt a bstine nc e from

c o c a ine . As disc usse d a

bove , the ALJ a c knowle dge d Na c o ste Harris’ s c ontinue d a

bstine nc e from

c oc a ine use and c onc lude d tha t he r drug use 3wa s im

m ate ria l to thenon-disa

bility de t e rm ination. Theothe r two pa ge s of ne w e vide nc e are a

re port from

a Se pte m be r 2015 M R I of Na c oste -Harris’ s c e rvic a l spine . Although “

re ports c onta ining obse rvations m a de a fte r the pe riod for disa bility are re le va

nt to a sse ss the c la im ant’ s disa bility , ” Smith v . Bow e n , 849 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th C ir.1988), Na c oste -Harris offe rs no a rgum e nt for how this new re port, whic h post-da

te s the ALJ’ s de c ision by ne arly two y e ars, is m ate ria l to the ALJ’ s de te rm ination. As a re sult, Na c oste -Harris ha s not c arrie d he r burde n of de m onstra

ting m ate ria lity . May e

s v . Massanari , 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th C ir. 2001). AFFIRM E D.

4