Bonner v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 TYLER BONNER, 10 CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1572-DWC Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 13 SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 On October 8, 2021, the Court determined the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 16 properly concluded Plaintiff was not disabled and affirmed Defendant’s decision to deny 17 Plaintiff’s applications for child’s insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Dkt. 34. 18 The Court entered judgment for Defendant on the same date. Dkt. 35. Presently before the Court 19 is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 59(e) (“Motion”).1 20 Dkt. 36. Plaintiff argues the Court should alter the judgment and reverse Defendant’s decision to 21 deny benefits because the Court’s decision is based on a clear error of law. Id. Specifically, 22 23 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule MJR 13, the parties 24 have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. See Dkt. 2. 1 Plaintiff asserts the Court committed clear error when it declined to make a finding regarding the 2 constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 902(a)(3). Id. Plaintiff also asserts this Court erred by failing to 3 allow her to conduct discovery. Id.2 4 The Court may alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) where the Court “‘is 5 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 6 change in the controlling law.’” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 7 Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 59(e) 8 provides an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 9 conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A Rule 10 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they 11 could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. 12 In reaching its decision, the Court considered the record as a whole and the arguments of 13 the parties, including Plaintiff’s previously raised arguments related to the constitutionality of 42 14 U.S.C. § 902(a)(3). See Dkt. 34; see also Dkt. 28, 30, 33. The Court found Plaintiff’s arguments 15 requesting remand due to the unconstitutional appointment of the then-Commissioner of Social 16 Security lacked merit. Dkt. 34. Since filing the Motion, this District has found 42 U.S.C. § 17 902(a)(3) violates separation of powers, but the violation is not grounds to reverse ALJ 18 decisions. See e.g. Lisa Y. v. Commissioner of Social Security, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2021 WL 19 5177363 at *5-8 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2021); Alice A. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case 20 No. 3:20-CV-5756-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 24, 2011). 21 22 23 2 Plaintiff also requested the undersigned voluntarily recuse himself. Dkt. 36. The undersigned declined to recuse himself and the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, the Chief United States District Judge, has affirmed that 24 decision. Dkt. 39, 40. 1 As courts are consistently finding 42 U.S.C. § 902(a)(3) does not warrant reversal of an 2 ALJ decision, Plaintiff’s arguments in the Motion are not sufficient to warrant an amended 3 judgment. Furthermore, as stated above, the Court considered the record as a whole, including 4 Plaintiff’s arguments, when reaching its decision. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show the 5 Court committed clear legal error. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 34) is denied. 6 Dated this 14th day of January, 2022. 7 A 8 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24