Case Name: Charles J. TITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 210 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 05-55926
Parties: Charles J. TITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Charles J. TITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-55926.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Charles J. Tittle, Huntington Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jacqueline A. Forslund, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charles J. Tittle appeals the district court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissioner of Social Security Administration's denial of his request to reopen his 1996 application for disability insurance benefits. Tittle also appeals the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner's denial of his 1999 application for benefits.
Generally, courts do not have jurisdiction to review a decision not to reopen a previously-adjudicated claim. Krumpelman v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 586, 587-88 (9th Cir.1985). "If, however, a person makes a colorable constitutional claim that the decision not to reopen violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," courts have jurisdiction. Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1202-03 (9th Cir. 1990). Tittle has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim. Further, Tittle waived the constitutional claim by not bringing it before the district court in the previous proceeding. See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, the district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision to reopen Tittle's 1996 application.
Tittle did not present any evidence that his condition worsened from October 7, 1998 to December 31, 1998. He therefore failed to meet his burden that changed circumstances precluded him from performing any substantial gainful activity during that period. See Schneider v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the district court did not err; rather it proper ly affirmed the Commissioner's denial of his 1999 application for benefits.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.