Constance Melkonian v. Michael Astrue

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONSTANCE V. MELKONIAN, disabled No. 09-55789
child/adult,
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02081-JLS-BLM
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Constance V. Melkonian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in
her action challenging the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to terminate
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
her supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.
2007) (order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits); Knievel v. ESPN,
393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Kildare
v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that substantial evidence supported
the Commissioner’s decision that Melkonian was no longer eligible for SSI
benefits under child or adult disability standards because her conditions had
medically improved and did not prevent her from working. See Warre v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming decision to
terminate child’s SSI benefits because substantial evidence supported that child
was no longer “disabled” due to medical improvement); Matthews v. Shalala, 10
F.3d 678, 680 (9th Cir. 1993) (claimant’s ability to attend school supported that his
impairments did not prevent him from performing all work).
The district court properly dismissed Melkonian’s remaining claims for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See Kildare, 325 F.3d at
1084 (mandamus relief is “extraordinary remedy” available only under limited
2 09-55789
circumstances); Hooker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 858 F.2d 525,
530 (9th Cir. 1988) (Social Security Act bars both Federal Tort Claims Act and
Bivens claims for alleged unconstitutional conduct resulting in termination of
benefits).
Melkonian’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny the Commissioner’s motion to strike and Melkonian’s request for
sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-55789