NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH MARTIN GARDNER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI , Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 55044
D.C. No. 3:16

- cv - 02940

- JAH

- WVG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitte d May 12 , 2022 * * Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and AMON, *** District Judge Kenneth Martin Gardner appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 5

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) , and we affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Gardner’s argument that the ALJ was biased against him based on the statistics and information provided on a third

- party website

. See Bunnell v. Barnhart , 336 F.3d 1112, 1114

- 15 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth the standard of review and explaining that to disqualify an ALJ , a claimant must show actual bias); Verduzco v. Apfel , 188 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 1999) ( noting that “ ALJs

. . . are presumed to be

u nbiased ,” and that the party asserting bias has the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing some “ specific reason for disqualification” ( quoting
Schweiker v. McClure , 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982) ) )

. S etting aside significant issues with respect to the reliability and probative force of the information provided on
the websit e, t he statistics Gardner relies on do not support his contention that the ALJ’s denial rates in the year when Gardner’s case was decided were unreasonably high as compared to the national average. Moreover, as the district court pointed out, neither Gardner nor the website explained how the cases underlying the statistics were selected, whether they concerned claimants with post

- traumatic
stress disorder , or how many of the A LJ’s decisions were overturned. Gardner’s claim of bias based on other claimants’ reviews of the ALJ posted on the website isPage 3 of 5

also not persuasive

. T he w eb site contains mixed reviews for the ALJ, with five negative and four positive reviews

. And even if the reviews were all negative, the existence of negative reviews, purportedly left by rejected claimants, does not by
itself establish categorical bias against individuals with post

- traumatic stress
disorder. Thus, the district court did not abuse its dis cretion by rejecting Gardner’s
claim of bias

. See Bunnell , 336 F.3d at 1114

- 15; Verduzco, 188 F.3d at 1089

. 2. Gardner’s second basis for contending that the ALJ was biased

— the ALJ’s negative comments at the hearing

— is similarly meritless. To demonstra te bias, a claimant must show that “the ALJ’s behavior, in the context of the whole case, was ‘so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.’”
Rollins v. Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Liteky v. United
States , 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994)). The ALJ’s comments do not meet this standard, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Gardner’s bias argument. 3. We also reject Gardner’s arguments that the ALJ erred in finding at Step
Five that Gar dner could perform certain unskilled work. Gardner first argues that it was not “reasonable” for the ALJ to find that Gardner, who had a prior career as a salesperson, would be suitable as a cleaning person merely because that is “a job
that was substanti ally below [his] former salary level .” This argument is legally
incorrect. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a) (defining “disability” as not only thePage 4 of 5

inability to perform “past relevant work,” but the inability to perform “any other substantial gainful work tha t exists in the national economy”). Gardner also argues that due to his limited ability to interact with coworkers and the public, he could not perform the job of cleaner. This argument also fails. The ALJ’s reliance on the Vocational Expert’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ found that the Vocational Expert’s testimony was consistent with the information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). See
Pinto v. Massanari , 249 F.3d 840, 845

- 46 (9th Cir. 2001) ( noting that the DOT is usually the “the best source for how a job is generally performed”). Moreover, Gardner does not challenge two additional occupations the Vocational Expert and ALJ identified, and therefore, concedes the issue. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1 566(b) (“Work exists in the national economy when there is a significant number of jobs (in one or more occupations) having requirements which you are able to meet with your physical or mental abilities and vocational qualifications.”)
4. Finally, t he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gardner’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); Morrow v. Topping , 437 F.2d 1155, 1156

- 57 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (finding no due process violation where the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s action without oral argument).Page 5 of 5

AFFIRMED
.