Allison Delacruz v. Kilolo Kijakazi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLISON VALDEZ DELACRUZ, No. 19-16577
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00715-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 7, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge; HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Allison Valdez Delacruz appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgement remanding her disability action to the agency for further proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
*
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).
discretion. Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir.
2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding Delacruz’s
proceeding to the agency for further proceedings because the administrative law
judge failed to explain his analysis at Step Three, and because the record includes
conflicting objective medical evidence concerning the severity of Delacruz’s
condition. See id. at 1101 (“Where there is conflicting evidence, and not all
essential factual issues have been resolved, a remand for an award of benefits is
inappropriate.”); Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176-77 (9th Cir. 1990)
(remanding to the agency for proper consideration of Step Three equivalence
because it is in a better position to evaluate the medical evidence).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Delacruz’s motion
to alter or amend the judgment. See Sch. Distr. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We decline to consider Delacruz’s arguments that the agency has violated
her Eighth Amendment rights, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, because they are outside the scope of this court’s subject matter
jurisdiction on appeal. See 42 U.S.C § 405(g).
2 19-16577
Delacruz’s request for monetary sanctions, raised for the first time in her
reply brief, is denied. See, e.g., Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991-92 (9th Cir.
2001) (describing the types of conduct that can provide a basis for “bad faith”).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-16577