McAdams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Opinion

1 WO 2

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 7

8 Sandyjean McAdams, No. CV-20-00316-PHX-SPL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 Commissioner of Social Security 12 Administration,

13 Defendant.

14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Sandyjean McAdams’ Motion for Reconsideration 16 (Doc. 37). In her initial Complaint to this Court, Plaintiff highlighted several areas in which 17 she believed the ALJ erred in her decision, but made no mention of any request for remand 18 to another ALJ. (Doc. 1 at 6-7). In her Opening Brief to this Court (Doc. 22), Plaintiff 19 stated that, when her case was originally remanded by the Social Security Appeals Council, 20 she requested that the remand be assigned to a different ALJ, but her request was denied. 21 (Doc. 22 at 2-3). In her Opening Brief, Plaintiff did not explain why she requested a 22 reassignment, but merely explained that the Appeals Council found no basis for 23 disqualifying Judge Bucci. (Doc. 22 at 3). She provided no argument as to why 24 reassignment was sought or why it was appropriate or would be appropriate if this Court 25 were to remand her case for further proceedings. 26 On August 2, 2021, this Court remanded Plaintiff’s case for further proceedings but 27 did not rule on Plaintiff’s request for reassignment. (Doc. 25). Plaintiff now seeks 28 reconsideration, arguing that a remand to ALJ Bucci would cause her severe distress and ! asserting that that this Court “seem[ed] to have overlooked Plaintiffs request” for reassignment. (Doc. 37 at 1). Not so. Nowhere in the record before the Court did Plaintiff provided any argument or analysis as to why the denial of her reassignment request was in 4 error or why this Court should reassign the case on remand. The Court therefore did not > consider the request. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding that 6 arguments that are presented without substantive analysis are waived). Furthermore, motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new 8 arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood 9 Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925—26 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 37) is denied. i Dated this 18th day of August, 2021. 12 13 Lange Honorable Steven P. Logan 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-